When is a molecule three dimensional? A task-specific role for imagistic reasoning in advanced chemistry

Science Education

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 310-336

  Stieff, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79551695260     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20427     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
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. Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The Chemical Educator, 2(4), 1-18.
4. Brownlow, S., McPheron, T. K., & Acks, C. A. (2003). Science background and spatial abilities in men and women. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(4), 371-381.
5. Bryant, D., & Tversky, B. (1992). Internal and external spatial frameworks for representing described scenes. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 74-98.
6. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315.
7. Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
8. Cooper, L. (1988). The role of spatial representations in complex problem solving. In S. Schiffer & S. Steele (Eds.), Cognition and representation (pp. 53-86). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
9. Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61-74.
10. Ege, S. N. (2003). Organic chemistry: Structure and reactivity (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11. Ericcson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
12. Gilbert, J. (2005). Visualization in science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
13. Habraken, C. L. (1996). Perceptions of chemistry: Why is the common perception of chemistry, the most visual of sciences, so distorted? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(3), 193-201.
14. Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static diagrams of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 1084-1102.
15. Hegarty, M. (2004a). Diagrams in the mind and in the world: Relations between internal and external visualizations. In A. Blackwell, K. Mariott, & A. Shimojima (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 1-13). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
16. Hegarty, M. (2004b). Mechanical reasoning as mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 280-285.
17. Kali, Y., & Orion, N. (1996). Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geological structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 369-391.
18. Kastens, K., & Liben, L. (2007). Eliciting self-explanations improves children's performance on a field-based map skills task. Cognition and Instruction, 25(1), 45-74.
19. Keehner, M., Tendick, F., Meng, M. V., Anwar, H. P., Hegarty, M., Stoller, M. L., et al. (2004). Spatial ability, experience, and skill in laparoscopic surgery. American Journal of Surgery, 188, 71-75.
20. Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translation of representation 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.
21. Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Spatial abilities in problem solving in kinematics. In M. Anderson, B. Meyer, & P. Olivier (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and reasoning (pp. 155-171). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
22. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949-968.
23. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
24. McNamara, T. P. (2003). How are the locations of objects in the environment represented in memory? In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel, & K. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition III: Routes and navigation, human memory and learning, spatial representation and spatial reasoning (pp. 174-191). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
25. Nathan, M. J., Stephens, A. C., Masarik, K., Alibali, M. W., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). Representational fluency in the middle school: A classroom study. In D. S. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Wiegel, R. L. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 463-472). Columbus, OH: ERIC.
26. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
27. 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 Teaching, 24(3), 229-240.
28. Rothenberg, A. (1995). Creative cognitive processes in Kekule's discover of the structure of the benzene molecule. American Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 419-438.
29. Schwartz, D. L., & Black, J. (1996). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: Induction and fallback. Cognitive Science, 20(4), 457-497.
30. Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 479-541.
31. Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606-620.
32. Small, M. Y., & Morton, M. E. (1983). Research in college science teaching: Spatial visualization training improves performance in organic chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 13(1), 41-43.
33. Stieff, M. (2004). A localized model of spatial cognition in chemistry. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
34. Stieff, M. (2007). Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 219-234.
35. Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Dixon, B. L. (2010). Alternative strategies for spatial reasoning with diagrams. In A. K. Goel, M. Jamnik, & N. H. Narayanan (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 115-127). Berlin: Springer.
36. Stieff, M., & Raje, S. (2010). Expert algorithmic and imagistic problem solving strategies in advanced chemistry. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 10(1), 53-81.
37. Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry---Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285-302.
38. Strauss, S., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Taagepera, M., & Noori, S. (2000). Mapping students' thinking patterns in learning organic chemistry by the use of knowledge space theory. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(9), 1224-1229.
40. Trafton, J. G., Trickett, S. B., & Mintz, F. (2005). Connecting internal and external representations: Spatial transformations of scientific visualizations. Foundations of Science, 10(1), 89-10.
41. Trafton, J. G., Trickett, S. B., Stitzlein, C. A., Saner, L., Schunn, C. D., & Kirschenbaum, S. S. (2006). The relationship between spatial transformations and iconic gestures. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 6(1), 1-29.
42. Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix. New York: Penguin.
43. West, T. G. (1991). In the mind's eye: Visual thinkers, gifted people with learning difficulties, computer images, and the ironies of creativity. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
44. Wu, H.-k., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting conceptual understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.