Designing guidance for interpreting dynamic visualizations: Generating versus reading explanations

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 147-174

  Ryoo, Kihyun ^a   Linn, Marcia C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

collaborative talk; curriculum development; dynamic visualization; generating explanations; inquiry; log files; science education; technology education

Indexed keywords

COLLABORATIVE TALK; CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT; DYNAMIC VISUALIZATION; GENERATING EXPLANATIONS; INQUIRY; LOG FILE; SCIENCE EDUCATION; TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION;

CURRICULA; DATA VISUALIZATION; PHOTOSYNTHESIS; VISUALIZATION;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84892446436     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21128     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A., &, Wood, D. J., (1997). Information technology and multiple representations: New opportunities-new problems. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 6 (1), 93-105.
2. Ainsworth, S. E., &, Loizou, A. T., (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27 (4), 669-681.
3. Aleven, V., &, Koedinger, K. R., (2002). An effective meta-cognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26 (2), 147-179.
4. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., &, Suthers, D., (Eds.). (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational contexts of confronting cognitions. In Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1-25). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
5. 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.
6. Baker, M. J., (2002). Argumentative interactions, discursive operations and learning to model in science. In, P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, &, A. Tiberghien, (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 303-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Baker, M., (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In, J. Andriessen, M. Baker, &, D. Suthers, (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 1-25). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
8. Berland, L., &, Reiser, B., (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93 (1), 26-55.
9. Berthold, K., &, Renkl, A., (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 70-87.
10. 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.
11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., &, Cocking, R. R., (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. Chang, H.-Y., &, Linn, M. C., (2013). Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (7), 858-886.
13. Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C., &, Krajcik, J., (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.
14. Chi, M. T. H., (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual process of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In, R. Glaser, (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Chi, M. T. H., &, Bassok, M., (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In, L. B. Resnick, (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
16. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., &, Glaser, R., (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13 (2), 145-182.
17. Chi, M. T. H., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., &, LaVancher, C., (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18 (3), 439-477.
18. Chiu, J. L., &, Linn, M. C., (2008) Self-assessment and self-explanation for learning chemistry using dynamic molecular visualizations. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences, Volume 3 (pp. 16-17). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
19. Crawford, T., Kelly, G., &, Brown, C., (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (3), 237-258.
20. Davis, E. A., (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 12 (1), 91-142.
21. Davis, E. A., &, Linn, M. C., (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (8), 819-837.
22. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., &, Paas, F., (2010). Learning by generating vs. receiving instructional explanations: Two approaches to enhance attention cueing in animations. Computers & Education, 55 (2), 681-691.
23. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., &, Paas, F., (2011). Attention cueing in an instructional animation: The role of presentation speed. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (1), 41-45.
24. de Vries, E., Lund, K., &, Baker, M., (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanations and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11 (1), 63-103.
25. Evagorou, M., &, Osborne, J., (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (2), 209-237.
26. Ferguson-Hessler, M. G., &, de Jong, T., (1990). Studying physics texts: Differences in study processes between good and poor performers. Cognition and Instruction, 7 (1), 41-54.
27. Gotwals, A. W., &, Songer, N. B., (2013). Validity evidence for learning progression-based assessment items that fuse core disciplinary ideas and science practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (5), 597-626.
28. Hausmann, R. G. M., &, vanLehn, K., (2007). Explaining self-explaining: A contrast between content versus generation. In, R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, &, J. E. Greer, (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Building technology rich learning contexts that work (pp. 417-424). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
29. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., &, Cate, C., (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21 (4), 209-249.
30. Hoffler, T. N., &, Leutner, D., (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17 (6), 722-738.
31. Jin, H., &, Anderson, C. W., (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (9), 1149-1180.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Kuhn, D., &, Katz, J., (2009). Are self-explanations always beneficial ? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103 (3), 386-394.
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. 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.
39. Lowe, R. K., (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13 (2), 157-176.
40. 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.
41. Matthews, P., &, Rittle-Johnson, B., (2009). In pursuit of knowledge: Comparing self-explanations, concepts, and procedures as pedagogical tools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104 (1), 1-21.
42. Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., &, 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), 806-813.
43. 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.
44. Mayer, R. E., &, Moreno, R., (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 43-52.
45. McNeill, K. L., &, Krajcik, J., (2007) Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In, M. C. Lovett, &, P. Shah, (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233-265). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. McNeill K., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., &, Marx, R. W., (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15 (2), 153-191.
47. 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.
48. Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., &, Krajcik, J., (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In, D. Strickl, &, D. E. Alvermann, (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades 4-12 (pp. 227-251). New York: Teachers College Press.
49. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50. 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.
51. O'Neil, H. F., Chung, G. K., Kerr, D., Vendlinski, T. P., Buschang, R. E., &, Mayer, R. E., (2014). Adding self-explanation prompts to an educational computer game. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 23-28.
52. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., &, Simon, S., (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41 (10), 994-1020.
53. Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., &, Rummel, N., (2009). Intelligent tutoring systems with multiple representations and self-explanation prompts support learning of fractions. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, & B. du Boulay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 441-448). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
54. Renkl, A., (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21 (1), 1-29.
55. Roy, M., &, Chi, M. T. H., (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In, R. E. Mayer, (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271-286). New York: Cambridge University Press.
56. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S. P., &, Schneider, J., (2010). Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining students' scientific explanations and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (5), 583-608.
57. 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.
58. Ryoo, K., &, Linn, M. C., (2012). Can dynamic visualizations improve middle school students' understanding of energy in photosynthesis ? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (2), 218-243.
59. Sampson, V., &, Blanchard, M. R., (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (9), 1122-1148.
60. Sandoval, W. A., (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (1), 5-51.
61. Sandoval, W. A., &, Reiser, B. J., (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88 (3), 345-372.
62. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., &, Schuh, J., (2010). The acquisition of problem-solving skills in mathematics: How animations can aid understanding of structural problem features and solution procedures. Instructional Science, 38 (5), 487-502.
63. Schnotz, W., &, Bannert, M., (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13 (2), 141-156.
64. Seufert, T., (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13 (2), 227-237.
65. Songer, N. B., &, Gotwals, A. W., (2012). Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (2), 141-165.
66. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., &, Kam, R., (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy ? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (2), 128-150.
67. 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.
68. Tasker, R., &, Dalton, R., (2006). Research into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7 (2), 141-159.
69. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., &, Betrancourt, M., (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate ? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57 (4), 247-262.
70. Van Meter, P., &, Garner, J., (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawings: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17 (4), 285-325.
71. Wallace, C. S., &, Kang, N. H., (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (9), 936-960.
72. Wandersee, J. H., (1988). Ways students read texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25 (1), 69-84.
73. Wong, R. M. F., Lawson, M. J., &, Keeves, J., (2002). The effects of selfexplanation training on students' problem solving in high-school mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 12 (2), 233-262.