Learning from Chemical Visualizations: Comparing generation and selection

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 35, Issue 13, 2013, Pages 2174-2197

  Zhang, Zhihui Helen ^a   Linn, Marcia C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemistry education; Drawing; Dynamic visualization; Generation; Selection

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882287263     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2013.792971     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ainsworth, S. E. 1999. A functional taxonomy of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33 (2/3): 131 - 152. (doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9)
2. Ainsworth, S. E., Prain, V. and Tytler, R. 2011. Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333 (6046): 1096 - 1097. (doi:10.1126/science.1204153)
3. Ardac, D. and 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. (doi:10.1002/tea.20005)
4. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B.-S. and Silberstein, J. 1987. Students' visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24 (4): 117 - 120.
5. Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C. and Krajcik, J. S. 2010. The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94 (1): 73 - 94.
6. Chi, M. T. H. 2000. " Self-explaining expository tests: The dual process of generating inferences and repairing mental models ". In Advances in instructional psychology, Edited by: Glaser, R. 161 - 238. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Clark, D. B. 2006. Longitudinal conceptual change in students' understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24 (4): 467 - 563. (doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2404_3)
8. Clark, D. B. and Sampson, V. 2008. Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (3): 293 - 321. (doi:10.1002/tea.20216)
9. DeBoer, G. E., Lee, H.-S. and Husic, F. 2008. " Assessing integrated understanding of science ". In Designing coherent science education, Edited by: Kali, Y., Roseman, J. E. and Linn, M. C. 153 - 184. New York: Teachers College Press.
10. diSessa, A. A. (1987). The third revolution in computers in education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 343-367.
11. Hegarty, M. 2004. Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14 (3): 343 - 351. (doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.007)
12. Kafai, Y. B. 2006. " Constructionism ". In Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, Edited by: Sawyer, K. 35 - 46. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Kali, Y. 2006. Collaborative knowledge-building using the design principles database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1 (2): 187 - 201. (doi:10.1007/s11412-006-8993-x)
14. Kozma, R. and Russell, J. 1997. Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6): 655 - 674.
15. Kozma, R. B. 2003. The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13 (2): 205 - 226. (doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X)
16. Krajcik, J. S. 1991. " Developing students' understanding of chemical concepts ". In The psychology of learning science: International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments, Edited by: Glynn, Y. S. M., Yanny, R. H. and Britton, B. K. 117 - 145. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Lee, H.-S., Liu, O. L. and Linn, M. C. 2011. Validating measurement of knowledge integration science using multiple-choice and explanation items. Applied Measurement in Education, 24 (2): 115 - 136. (doi:10.1080/08957347.2011.554604)
18. Linn, M. C., Clark, D. and Slotta, J. D. 2003. WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87 (4): 517 - 538. (doi:10.1002/sce.10086)
19. Linn, M. C. and Eylon, B.-S. 2011. Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration, New York: Routledge.
20. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F. and Chiu, J. L. 2006. Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313 (5790): 1049 - 1050. (doi:10.1126/science.1131408)
21. Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., Hofstetter, C. and Linn, M. C. 2008. Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13 (1): 33 - 55. (doi:10.1080/10627190801968224)
22. Lowe, R. K. 2003. Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13: 157 - 176. (doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00018-X)
23. Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T. and Mayer, S. 2003. Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4): 806 - 812. (doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.806)
24. Mayer, R. E. and Moreno, R. 2003. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38: 43 - 52. (doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6)
25. Novak, J. D. and Gowin, D. B. 1984. Learning how to learn, New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Palinscar, A. S. and Brown, A. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 (2): 117 - 175. (doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1)
27. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan, R. D., Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
28. Schank, P. and Kozma, R. 2002. Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21 (3): 253 - 279.
29. Seufert, T. 2003. Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13: 227 - 237. (doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00022-1)
30. Slotta, J. and Linn, M. C. 2009. WISE science: Web-based Inquiry in the classroom. Technology, education -Connections, New York: Teachers College Press.
31. Stieff, M. and Wilensky, U. 2003. Connected chemistry - Incorporating interactive simulation into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12 (3): 285 - 302. (doi:10.1023/A:1025085023936)
32. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B. and Betrancourt, M. 2002. Animation: Can it facilitate?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57 (4): 247 - 262. (doi:10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017)
33. Van Meter, P. and Garner, J. 2005. The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17: 285 - 325. (doi:10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3)
34. White, R. and Gunstone, R. 1992. Probing understanding, New York: The Falmer Press.
35. Williams, M., DeBarger, A. H., Montgomery, B. L., Zhou, X. and Tate, E. 2012. Exploring middle school students' conceptions of the relationship between genetic inheritance and cell division. Science Education, 96 (1): 78 - 103. (doi:10.1002/sce.20465)
36. Williamson, V. M. and 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 (5): 521 - 534. (doi:10.1002/tea.3660320508)
37. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S. and 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. (doi:10.1002/tea.1033)
38. Xie, Q. and Tinker, R. 2006. Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83 (1): 77 - 83. (doi:10.1021/ed083p77)
39. Yarroch, W. L. 1985. Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (5): 449 - 459. (doi:10.1002/tea.3660220507)
40. Zhang, Z. (2007, April). Using Scaffolded visualizations to support student understanding of energy concepts at molecular and macroscopic levels. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
41. Zhang, Z., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Using drawings to support learning from dynamic visualizations international perspectives in the learning sciences: Cre8ting a learning world. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (vol. 3, pp. 161-162). Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
42. Zhang, Z. and Linn, M. C. 2011. Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (10): 1177 - 1198. (doi:10.1002/tea.20443)