Can dynamic visualizations improve middle school students' understanding of energy in photosynthesis?

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 218-243

  Ryoo, Kihyun ^a   Linn, Marcia C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

dynamic visualization; energy; inquiry learning; knowledge integration; photosynthesis; technology

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT CONCEPT; CURRICULUM DESIGNS; DYNAMIC CONDITION; DYNAMIC VISUALIZATION; ENERGY; ENERGY CONCEPT; ENERGY TRANSFORMATION; INQUIRY LEARNING; INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS; INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT; KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION; MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS; MOLECULAR PROCESS; STATIC CONDITIONS;

ABSTRACTING; CURRICULA; INTEGRATION; PHOTOSYNTHESIS; TECHNOLOGY; VISUALIZATION;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84855964287     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21003     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2005). High school biology textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, B., (1986). Pupils' explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70 (5), 549-563.
4. Anderson, C., Sheldon, T., &, Dubay, J., (1990). The effects of instruction on college nonmajors' conceptions of respiration and photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (8), 761-776.
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 (4), 317-337.
6. Ardac, D., &, Akaygun, S., (2005). Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (11), 1269-1298. (Pubitemid 41622710)
7. Arnold, B., &, Simpson, M., (1980). The concept of photosynthesis at 'O' grade-why pupil difficulties occur. Scottish Association for Biological Education Newsletter, 5, 4.
8. Barker, M., &, Carr, M., (1989). Teaching and learning about photosynthesis. Part 1: An assessment in terms of students' prior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 49-56.
9. Betrancourt, M., (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In:, R. E. Mayer, (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287-296). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Carlsson, B., (2002). Ecological understanding 1: Ways of experiencing photosynthesis. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (7), 681-699.
11. Ãepni, S., TaÅ, E., &, Köse, S., (2006). The effects of computer-assisted material on students' cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science. Computers & Education, 46 (2), 192-205.
12. Chiu, J. L., (2010). Supporting students' knowledge integration with technology-enhanced inquiry curricula (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation and Theses database (UMI No. AAT 3413337).
13. Chiu, J. L., &, Linn, M. C., (2008). Self-assessment and self-explanation for learning chemistry using dynamic molecular visualizations. In V. Jonker & A. Lazonder (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Cre8ting a Learning World. Utrecht, Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
14. Chiu, J. L., &, Linn, M. C., (2011). Knowledge integration and wise engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1 (1), 1-14.
15. Cohen, J., (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Cook, M. P., (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90 (6), 1073-1091. (Pubitemid 44701336)
17. Coolidge-Stolz, E., Cronkite, D., Jenner, J., Pasachoff, J. M., &, Wysession, M., (2008). California: Focus on life science. Boston: Pearson Prentice Hall.
18. Eisen, Y., &, Stavy, R., (1988). Students' understanding of photosynthesis. The American Biology Teacher, 50, 208-212.
19. Fleming, S. A., Hart, G. R., &, Savage, P. B., (2000). Molecular orbital animations for organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77 (6), 790-793.
20. Hegarty, M., (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343-351. (Pubitemid 39216293)
21. Hegarty, M., Quilici, J., Narayanan, N. H., Holmquist, S., &, Moreno, R., (1999). Multimedia instruction: Lessons from evaluation of a theory-based design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 119-150.
22. Hesse, J., &, Anderson, C. W., (1992). Students' conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 277-299.
23. Höffler, T. N., &, Leutner, D., (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722-738.
24. Höffler, T. N., Prechtl, H., &, Nerdel, C., (2010). The influence of visual cognitive style when learning from instructional animations and static pictures. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (5), 479-483.
25. Huk, T., Steinke, M., &, Floto, C., (2010). The educational value of visual cues and 3D-representational format in a computer animation under restricted and realistic conditions. Instructional Science, 38 (5), 455-469.
26. Johnson, P., (2000). Children' s understanding of substances, Part 1: Recognizing chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 719-737.
27. Jones, L., Jordon, K., &, Stillings, N., (2001). Molecular visualisation in science education. Report Prepared for the 2001 Gordon Research Conference on Science Education and Visualisation, Arlington.
28. Kali, Y., &, Linn, M. C., (2008). Designing effective visualizations for elementary school science. The Elementary School Journal, 109 (2), 181-198.
29. Kehoe, C., Stasko, J., &, Taylor, A., (2001). Rethinking the evaluation of algorithm animations as learning aids: An observational study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54 (2), 265-284.
30. Kelly, R. M., &, Jones, L. L., (2007). Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students' explanations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 413-429.
31. Kesidou, S., &, Roseman, J. E., (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (6), 522-549.
32. Köse, S., (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: Using drawings as a research method. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3 (2), 283-293.
33. 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. (Pubitemid 127458975)
34. Lee, H.-S., &, Liu, O. L., (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94 (4), 665-688.
35. Lewalter, D., (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177-189. (Pubitemid 36280161)
36. Linn, M. C., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J., Zhang, H., &, McElhaney, K., (2010). Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In:, A. Benjamin, (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 239-262). New York: Routledge.
37. Linn, M. C., &, Eylon, B.-S., (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.
38. Linn, M. C., &, Hsi, S., (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., &, Linn, M. C., (2010). A Comparison among multiple-choice, constructed-response and explanation multiple-choice items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), Denver, CO.
40. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., &, Chiu, J. L., (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049-1050. (Pubitemid 44300215)
41. Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., Hofstetter, C., &, Linn, M. C., (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13 (1), 33-55.
42. Lowe, R. K., (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157-176. (Pubitemid 36280160)
43. 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. (Pubitemid 351456610)
44. Marmaroti, P., &, Galanopoulou, D., (2006). Pupils' understanding of photosynthesis: A questionnaire for the simultaneous assessment of all aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 383-403. (Pubitemid 43090571)
45. Mayer, R. E., &, Gallini, J. K., (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
46. Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., &, Campbell, J., (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11 (4), 256-265. (Pubitemid 43089584)
47. Mayer, R. E., &, Moreno, R., (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52. (Pubitemid 36400003)
48. Mohan, L., Chen, H., &, Anderson, W. C., (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 675-698.
49. Morrison, J. B., &, Tversky, B., (2001). The (In) effectiveness of animation in instruction. In:, J. Jacko, &, A. Sears, (Eds.), Chi 001: Extended abstracts (pp. 377-378). Danvers, MA: ACM.
50. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
51. Nordine, J., Krajcik, J., &, Fortus, D., (2011). Transforming energy instruction in middle school to support integrated understanding and future learning. Science Education, 95 (4), 670-699.
52. Pass, F., Renkl, A., &, Sweller, J., (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 1-4. (Pubitemid 36399998)
53. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., ..., Soloway, E., (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3), 337-386. (Pubitemid 39057719)
54. Rieber, L. P., (1989). The effects of computer animated elaboration strategies and practice on factual and application learning in an elementary science lesson. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 431-444.
55. Rotbain, Y., Marbach-Ad, G., &, Stavy, R., (2006). Effect of bead and illustration models on high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 500-529. (Pubitemid 43735023)
56. Roseman, J. E., Stern, L., &, Koppal, M., (2010). A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology text books. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 47-70.
57. Roth, K., Smith, E., &, Anderson, C., (1983). Students' conceptions of photosynthesis and food for plants. Montreal, Canada: American Educational Research Association.
58. Ryoo, K., &, Linn, M. C., (2010). Students' Progress in Understanding Energy Concepts in Photosynthesis using Visualizations. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines, proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 480-481). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
59. Sanger, M. J., Brecheisen, D. M., &, Hynek, B. M., (2001). Can computer animations affect college biology students' conceptions about diffusion & osmosis? The American Biology Teacher, 63 (2), 104-109. (Pubitemid 33388101)
60. 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), 1517-1520.
61. Schnotz, W., &, Grzondziel, H., (1999). Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 245-265.
62. Slotta, J. D., &, Linn, M., (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
63. Stavy, R., Eisen, Y., &, Yaakobi, D., (1987). How students aged 13-15 understand photosynthesis. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 105-115.
64. Stern, L., &, Roseman, J. E., (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (6), 538-568.
65. Stieff, M., (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (10), 1137-1158.
66. Tasker, R., &, Dalton, R., (2006). Research into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 141-159. (Pubitemid 43666147)
67. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., &, Betrancourt, M., (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57 (4), 247-262.
68. Vermaat H, Terlouw C, &, Dijkstra S., (2003). Multiple representations in web-based learning of chemistry concepts. A paper presented at the 84th annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
69. Waheed, T., &, Lucas, A., (1992). Understanding interrelated topics: Photosynthesis at age 14+. Journal of Biological Education, 26, 193-199.
70. 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.
71. Wilson, C. D., Anderson, C. W., Heidemann, M., Merrill, J. E., Merritt, B. W., Richmond, G., ..., Parker, J. M., (2006). Assessing students' ability to trace matter in dynamic systems in cell biology. CBE Life Science Education, 5, 323-331.
72. Wood-Robinson, C., (1991). Young people's ideas about plants. Studies in Science Education, 19, 119-135.
73. Yarden, H., &, Yarden, A., (2010). Learning using dynamic and static visualizations: Students' comprehension, prior knowledge and conceptual status of a biotechnological method. Research in Science Education, 40 (3), 375-402.
74. Zhang, Z. H., &, Linn, M. C., (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (10), 1177-1198.