Connection making between multiple graphical representations: A multi-methods approach for domain-specific grounding of an intelligent tutoring system for chemistry

Computers and Education

Volumn 82, Issue , 2015, Pages 460-485

  Rau, Martina A ^a   Michaelis, Joseph E ^a   Fay, Natalie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemistry; Connection making; Intelligent tutoring systems; Multiple representations; Perceptual learning

Indexed keywords

CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; EDUCATION COMPUTING; GRAPHIC METHODS;

CONNECTION MAKING; GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS; INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEM; INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEM (ITSS); KNOWLEDGE TESTING; MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION; PERCEPTUAL LEARNING; THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK;

HIGHWAY PLANNING;

EID: 84920699181     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
2. Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 25-61.
3. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(4), 669-681.
4. Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., Sewall, J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(2), 105-154.
5. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167-207.
6. Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215-241.
7. Arroyo, I., Royer, J. M., & Woolf, B. P. (2011). Using an intelligent tutor and math fluency training to improve math performance. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 21(1), 135-152.
8. Bodemer, D., & Faust, U. (2006). External and mental referencing of multiple representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 27-42.
9. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Bruchmüller, K., & Häcker, S. (2005). Supporting learning with interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33(1), 73-95.
10. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 325-341.
11. Bodner, G. M., & Domin, D. S. (2000). Mental models: the role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24-30.
12. Brünken, R., Seufert, T., & Zander, S. (2005). Förderung der Kohärenzbildung beim Lernen mit multiplen Repräsentationen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 19(1), 61-75.
13. Butcher, K., & Aleven, V. (2007). Integrating visual and verbal knowledge during classroom learning with computer tutors. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.
14. Butcher, K., & Aleven, V. (2008). Diagram interaction during intelligent tutoring in geometry: support for knowledge retention and deep transfer. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2008. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Cheng, P. (1999). Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computers & Education, 33, 109-130.
16. Cheng, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2009). Towards a better utilization of diagrams in research into the use of representative levels in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 191-208). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003a). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners' mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 464-486.
19. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003b). Learners' mental models of metallic bonding: a cross-age study. Science Education, 87(5), 685-707.
20. Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2007). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92(5), 848-867.
21. Corbett, A. (2001). Cognitive computer tutors: solving the two-sigma problem. In User Modeling: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference (pp. 137-147). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
22. Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K., & Hadley, W. S. (2001). Cognitive tutors: from the research classroom to all classrooms. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Technology enhanced learning: Opportunities for change (pp. 235-263). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
23. Davidowitz, B., & Chittleborough, G. (2009). Linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels: diagrams. In J. K. Gilbert, & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 169-191). Netherlands: Springer.
24. Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61-74.
25. Eastwood, M. L. (2013). Fastest fingers: a molecule-building game for teaching organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(8), 1038-1041.
26. Eilam, B. (2013). Possible constraints of visualization in biology: Challenges in learning with multiple representations. In Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 55-73). Netherlands: Springer.
27. Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2008). Learning with multiple representations: extending multimedia learning beyond the lab. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 368-378.
28. Fahle, M., & Poggio, T. (2002). Perceptual learning. The MIT Press.
29. Furio, C., Calatayud, M. L., Barcenas, S. L., & Padilla, O. M. (2000). Functional fixedness and function reduction as common sense reasonings in chemical equilibrium and in geometry and polarity of molecules. Science Education, 84, 545-565.
30. Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 301-326).
31. Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Prentice Hall.
32. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Towards a coherent model for macro, submicro and symbolic representations in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 333-350). Netherlands: Springer.
33. Gobert, J. D., O'Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B. C., Levy, S. T., &Wilensky, U. (2011). Examining the relationship between students' understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 653-684.
34. Gutwill, J. P., Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1999). Making their own connections: students' understanding of multiple models in basic electricity. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 249-282.
35. Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: the role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1215-1226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1525.
36. Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 313-334).
37. Hyönä, J., & Nurminen, A. M. (2006). Do adult readers know how they read? Evidence from eye movement patterns and verbal reports. British Journal of Psychology, 97(1), 31-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712605X53678.
38. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 178-191.
39. de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S. E., Dobson, M., Van der Meij, J., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., et al. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: the use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In M. W. Van Someren, W. Reimers, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
40. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Models and modelling in chemical education. Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47-68). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
41. Justi, R., Gilbert, J. K., & Ferreira, P. F. (2009). The application of a "model of modelling" to illustrate the importance of metavisualisation in respect of the three types of representation. In J. K. Gilbert, & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 285-307). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
42. Kellman, P. J., & Garrigan, P. B. (2009). Perceptual learning and human expertise. Physics of Life Reviews, 6(2), 53-84.
43. Kellman, P. J., & Massey, C. M. (2013). Perceptual Learning, cognition, and expertise. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 558, 117-165.
44. Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., Roth, Z., Burke, T., Zucker, J., Saw, A., et al. (2008). Perceptual learning and the technology of expertise: studies in fraction learning and algebra. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2), 356-405.
45. Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., & Son, J. Y. (2009). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics: Enhancing students' pattern recognition, structure extraction, and fluency. In Topics in cognitive science (Vol. 2, pp. 285-305).
46. Kind, V. (2004). Beyond Appearances: Students' misconceptions about basic chemical ideas. Durham: School of Education, Durham University.
47. Koedinger, K. R., Baker, R., Cunningham, K., Skogsholm, A., Leber, B., & Stamper, J. (2010). A data repository for the EDM community: the PSLC Data-Shop. In C. Romero (Ed.), Handbook of educational data mining (pp. 10-12). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
48. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive Tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49. Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance Robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 757-798.
50. Kordaki, M. (2010). A drawing and multi-representational computer environment for beginners' learning of programming using C: design and pilot formative evaluation. Computers & Education, 54, 69-87.
51. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9 (2), 105-143.
52. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005a). Multimedia learning of chemistry Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 409-428).
53. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005b). Students becoming chemists: Developing representationl competence. Visualization in science education (pp. 121-145). Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands.
54. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(1), 65-100.
55. Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 177-189.
56. Lewis, D., & Barron, A. (2009). Animated demonstrations: evidence of improved performance efficiency and the worked example effect. Human Centered Design, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5619, 247-255.
57. Linenberger, K. J., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). Generating cognitive dissonance in student interviews through multiple representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 172-178.
58. Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (1989). The analysis of social science data with missing values. Sociological Methods & Research, 18(2-3), 292-326.
59. Magner, U. I., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Renkl, A. (2014). Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computerbased learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 29, 141-152.
60. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). Effects of picture labeling on science text processing and learning: evidence from eye movements. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 199-214.
61. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ariasi, N. (2013). An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 356-384.
62. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education.
63. van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199-212.
64. Michalchik, V., Rosenquist, A., Kozma, R., Kreikemeier, P., & Schank, P. (2008). Representational resources for constructing shared understandings in the high school chemistry classroom. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. B. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 233-282). Springer Netherlands.
65. Moreira, R. F. (2013). A game for the early and rapid assimilation of organic nomenclature. Journal of Chemical Education, 1035-1037.
66. Nakiboglu, C. (2003). Instructional misconceptions of Turkish prospective chemistry teachers about atomic orbitals and hybridization. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4(2), 171-188.
67. Nathan, M. J., Walkington, C. A., Srisurichan, R., & Alibali, M. W. (2011). Modal engagements in precollege engineering: Tracking math and science concepts across symbols, sketches, software, silicone and wood. American Society for Engineering Education.
68. Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates' bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 707-730.
69. Noss, R. R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 203-233.
70. Özgün-Koca, S. A. (2008). Ninth grade students studying the movement of fish to learn about linear relationships: the use of video-based analysis software in mathematics classrooms. The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 15-25.
71. Rasch, T., & Schnotz, W. (2009). Interactive and non-interactive pictures in multimedia learning environments: effects on learning outcomes and learning efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 411-422.
72. Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2013). Complementary effects of sense-making and fluency-building support for connection making: a matter of sequence? In H. C. Lane, K. Yacef, J. Mostow, & P. Pavlik (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 329-338) Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
73. Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2014). Successful learning with multiple graphical representations and self-explanation prompts. Journal of Educational Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037211.
74. Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., Rummel, N., & Rohrbach, S. (2012). Sense making alone doesn't do it: fluency matters too! ITS support for robust learning with multiple representations. In S. Cerri, W. Clancey, G. Papadourakis, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. 7315, pp. 174e184). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
75. Rau, M. A., Rummel, N., Aleven, V., Pacilio, L., & Tunc-Pekkan, Z. (2012). How to schedule multiple graphical representations? A classroom experiment with an intelligent tutoring system for fractions. In J. V. Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2012) (Vol. 1, pp. 64-71). Sydney, Australia: ISLS.
76. Rau, M. A., Scheines, R., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2013). Does representational understanding enhance fluency or vice versa? Searching for mediation models. In S. K. D'Mello, R. A. Calvo, & A. Olney (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2013) (pp. 161-169). International Educational Data Mining Society.
77. Rau, M. A. (under review). Habitually closing the loop between theory and practice: How educational technologies and data mining can shape educational psychology research about learning with multiple graphical representations.
78. Rayner, K., Rotello, C. M., Stewart, A. J., Keir, J., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Integrating text and pictorial information: eye movements when looking at print advertisements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3), 219-226.
79. Ritter, S., Anderson, J. R., Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. T. (2007). Cognitive Tutor: applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14 (2), 249-255.
80. Schlag, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2011). Supporting learning from illustrated texts: conceptualizing and evaluating a learning strategy. Instructional Science, 39(6), 921-937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9160-3.
81. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: new insights from investigating students' viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 226-237.
82. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141-156.
83. Schwonke, R., Ertelt, A., & Renkl, A. (2008). Fostering the translation between external representations. Does it enhance learning with an intelligent tutoring program? In J. Zumbach, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert, & L. Kester (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: The legacy of competence (pp. 117-119) Springer Netherlands.
84. Schwonke, R., & Renkl, A. (2010). How do proficient learners construct mental representations of different but related external representations? . Paper presented at the EARLI SIG 2, Tuebingen.
85. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227-237.
86. Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2006). Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Applied cognitive psychology, 20, 321-331.
87. Shih, T. H., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field methods, 20(3), 249-271.
88. Stieff, M. (2005). Connected chemistry-A novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(3), 489-493.
89. Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Deslongchamps, G. (2011). Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 123-145.
90. Strickland, A. M., Kraft, A., & Bhattacharyya, G. (2010). What happens when representations fail to represent? Graduate students' mental models of organic chemistry diagrams. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(4), 293-301.
91. Taber, S. B. (2001). Making connections among different representations: The case of multiplication of fractions.
92. Taber, K. S. (2009). Learning at the symbolic level. In J. K. Gilbert, & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 75-105). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
93. Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168.
94. Taber, K. S. (2014). The significance of implicit knowledge for learning and teaching chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 447-461.
95. Taber, K. S., & Coll, R. K. (2002). Bonding. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treajust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 213-234). Dordrecht Boston London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
96. Talanquer, V. (2013). Chemistry education: ten facets to shape us. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 90, 832-838.
97. Urban-Woldron, J. (2009). Interactive simulations for the effective learning of physics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(2), 163-176.
98. Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 16-26.
99. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369.
100. Williamson, V. M. (2014). Teaching chemistry conceptually. In I. Devetak, & S. Aleksij (Eds.), Learning with understanding in the chemistry classroom (pp. 193-208). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
101. Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
102. Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465-492.
103. 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.