Representational Translation With Concrete Models in Organic Chemistry

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 404-434

  Stull, Andrew T ^a   Hegarty, Mary ^a   Dixon, Bonnie ^b   Stieff, Mike ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867514105     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2012.719956     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Ainsworth, S. 2006. DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16: 183-198.
2. American Chemical Society. 2010. 2010 First Term Organic Exam, American Chemical Society Examinations Institute. Retrieved from http://chemexams.chem.iastate.edu/materials/details_exam.cfm?ID=41754
3. Bethell-Fox, C. E. and Shepard, R. N. 1988. Mental rotation: Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 14: 12-23.
4. Bodner, G. M. and McMillan, T. L. B. 1986. Cognitive restructuring as an early stage in problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23: 727-737.
5. Bowen, C. W. 1990. Representational systems used by graduate students while problem solving in organic synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27: 351-370.
6. Bucat, B. and Mocerino, M. 2009. "Learning at the sub-micro level: Structural representations". In Multiple representations in chemical education: Models and modeling in science education, Edited by: Gilbert, J. K. and Treagust, D. Vol. 4, 11-29. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
7. Cheng, M. and Gilbert, J. K. 2009. "Towards a better utilization of diagrams in research into the use of representative levels of chemical education". In Multiple representations in chemical education: Models and modeling in science education, Edited by: Gilbert, J. K. and Treagust, D. Vol. 4, 55-73. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
8. Chérest, M. and Felkin, H. 1968. Torsional strain involving partial bonds: The steric course of the reaction between allyl magnesium bromide and 4-T-butyl-cyclohexanone. Tetrahedron Letters, 18: 2205-2208.
9. diSessa, A. A. 2004. Metarepresentaion: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22: 293-331.
10. diSessa, A. A. and Sherin, B. L. 2000. Meta-representation: An introduction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19: 385-398.
11. Ealy, J. B. 2004. Students' understanding is enhanced through molecular modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13: 461-471.
12. Francoeur, E. and Segal, J. 2004. "From model kits to interactive computer graphics". In Models: Third dimension of science, Edited by: de Chadarevian, S. and Hopwood, N. 402-429. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13. Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7: 155-170.
14. Goodwin, W. M. 2008. Structural formulas and explanation in organic chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 10: 117-127.
15. Gray, W. D. and Fu, W.-T. 2004. Soft constraints in interactive behavior: The case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head. Cognitive Science, 28: 359-382.
16. Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W.-T. and Schoelles, M. J. 2006. The soft constrains hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113: 461-482.
17. Harle, M. and Towns, M. 2011. A review of spatial ability literature, its connection to chemistry, and implications for instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1021/ed900003n
18. Harrison, A. G. and Treagust, D. F. 2000. A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22: 1011-1026.
19. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E. and Kirsh, D. 2000. Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7: 174-196.
20. Hoffmann, R. and Laszlo, P. 1991. Representation in chemistry. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 30: 1-16.
21. Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A. 1985. Cognitive coordinate systems: Accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in spatial ability. Psychological Review, 92: 137-172.
22. Justi, R. and Gilbert, J. K. 2002. Modelling, teachers' views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4): 369-388.
23. Ishikawa, T. and Kastens, K. A. 2004. Envisioning large geologic structures from field observations: An experimental study. Geological Society of America, 2004 annual meeting. Abstracts with Programs-Geological Society of America, 36(5): 156-157.
24. Kali, Y. and Orion, N. 1996. Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geological structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33: 369-391.
25. Kastens, K. A. and Ishikawa, T. 2006. "Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields". In Earth and mind: How geologists think and learn about the earth, Edited by: Manduca, C. A. and Mogk, D. W. 53-76. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. Geological Society of America Special Paper No. 413
26. Keehner, M., Hegarty, M., Cohen, C. A., Khooshabeh, P. and Montello, D. R. 2008. Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: What matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cognitive Science, 32: 1099-1132.
27. Keig, P. F. and Rubba, P. A. 1993. Translation of representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30: 883-903.
28. Kirsh, D. 1995a. "Complementary strategies: Why we use our hands when we think". In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edited by: Moore, J. D. and Lehman, J. F. 212-217. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Kirsh, D. 1995b. The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence, 73: 31-68.
30. Kirsh, D. 1997. Interactivity and multimedia interfaces. Instructional Science, 25: 79-96.
31. Kirsh, D. and Maglio, P. 1994. On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18: 513-549.
32. Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M. and Mayer, R. E. 2002. Revising the visualizer/verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20: 47-77.
33. 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.
34. Kozma, R. B., Chin, E., Russell, J. and Marx, N. 2000. The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9: 105-144.
35. Kozma, R. B. and Russell, J. 1997. Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34: 949-968.
36. Kozma, R. B. and Russell, J. 2005. "Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence". In Visualizations in science education: Models and modeling in science education, Edited by: Gilbert, J. K. 121-146. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
37. Liben, L. S., Kastens, K. A. and Christensen, A. E. 2011. Spatial foundations of science education: The illustrative case of instruction on introductory geological concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 29: 45-87.
38. Markman, A. B. and Gentner, D. 2000. Structure mapping in the comparison process. The American Journal of Psychology, 113: 501-538.
39. McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L. and van Zee, E. H. 1987. Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55: 503-513.
40. Nathan, M. J., Stephens, A. C., Masarik, D. K., Alibali, M. W. and Koedinger, K. R. 2002. "Representational fluency in middle school: A classroom study". In Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Edited by: Mewborn, D. S., Sztajn, P., White, D. Y., Wiegel, H. G., Bryant, R. L. and Nooney, K. Vol. 1, 462-472. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.
41. Novick, L. R. and Catley, K. M. 2007. Understanding phylogenies in biology: The influence of a Gestalt perceptual principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13: 197-223.
42. Peirce, C. S. 1994. Peirce on signs: Writings on semiotic, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
43. Pribyl, J. R. and 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: 229-240.
44. Raje, S. and Stieff, M. April 2009. An examination of the cognitive mechanisms underlying chemistry misconceptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA
45. Rochford, K. 1985. Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students. Medical Education, 19: 13-26.
46. Schoenfeld, A. H. 1992. "Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics". In Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning, Edited by: Grouws, D. 334-370. New York, NY: MacMillan.
47. Stieff, M. 2007. Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learning and Instruction, 17: 219-234.
48. Stieff, M. 2011. When is a molecule three dimensional? A task-specific role for imagistic reasoning in organic chemistry. Science Education, 92: 310-336.
49. Stieff, M. and McCombs, M. 2006. "Increasing representational fluency with visualization tools". In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Edited by: Barab, S., Hay, K. E. and Hickey, D. T. Vol. 1, 730-736. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Stieff, M. and Raje, S. 2010. Expertise algorithmic and imagistic problem solving strategies in advanced chemistry. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 10: 53-81.
51. Summerscales, O. T., Cloke, F. G. N., Hitchcock, P. B., Green, J. C. and Hazari, N. 2006. Reductive cyclotrimerization of carbon monoxide to the deltate dianion by an organometallic uranium complex. Science, 311: 829-831.
52. Vandenberg, S. G. and Kuse, A. R. 1978. Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47: 599-601.
53. Wartofsky, M. W. 1979. Models: Representations and the scientific understanding, Dordrecht, NL: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
54. Wipf, P. and Jung, J.-K. 1999. Nucleophilic additions to 4,4-disubstituted 2,5-cyclohexadienones: Can dipole effects control facial selectivity?. Chemical Review, 99: 1469-1480.
55. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S. and 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.
56. Wu, H.-K. and Shah, P. 2004. Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88: 465-492.