Correction to Models as Feedback: Developing Representational Competence in Chemistry [Journal of Educational Psychology, (2014)] DOI: 10.1037/a0037516;Models as feedback: Developing representational competence in chemistry

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 107, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 451-466

  Padalkar, Shamin ^a   Hegarty, Mary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemistry education; Feedback; Spatial tools

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930378258     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: 19392176     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/edu0000019     Document Type: Erratum

References (45)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
2. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tyler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096-1097. doi:10.1126/science.1204153
3. American Chemical Society. (2010). 2010 First Term Organic Exam Retrieved from http://chemexams.chem.iastate.edu/materials/details_exam.cfm?ID_41754
4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
5. Bjork, E. L., DeWinstanley, P. A., & Storm, B. C. (2007). Learning how to learn: Can experiencing the outcome of different encoding strategies enhance subsequent encoding? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 207-211. doi:10.3758/BF03194053
6. Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XV11 (pp. 435-459). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10, 14-21. doi:10.3102/0013189X010002014
8. Bruice, P. Y. (2010). Organic chemistry (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
9. Chariker, J. H., Naaz, F., & Pani, J. R. (2011). Computer-based learning of neuroanatomy: A longitudinal study of learning, transfer, and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 19-31. doi:10.1037/a0021680
10. Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Visualizing cross sections: Training spatial thinking using interactive animations and virtual objects. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 63-71.
11. de Winstanley, P. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2004). Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader. Memory & Cognition, 32, 945-955. doi:10.3758/BF03196872
12. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentaion: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293-331. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2
13. Downs, R. M., & Liben, L. S. (1991). The development of expertise in geography: A cognitive-developmental approach to geographic education. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81, 304-327. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1991.tb01692.x
14. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions on Psychological Science, 12, 83-87. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01235
15. Gagnier, K. M., Atit, K., Ormand, C., & Shipley, T. F. (2012). Improving penetrative thinking via progressive alignment and directed sketching. Talk presented at The Geological Society of America Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC.
16. Garg, A., Norman, G. R., Spero, L., & Maheshwari, P. (1999). Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning? Academic Medicine, 74, S87-S89. doi:10.1097/00001888-199910000-00049
17. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
18. Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 280-285. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.04.001
19. Hinze, S. R., Rapp, D., Williamson, V. M., Shultz, M. J., Deslongchamps, G., & Williamson, K. C. (2013). Beyond ball-and-stick: Students' processing of novel STEM visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 26, 12-21. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.12.002
20. Hirshman, E., & Bjork, R. A. (1988). The generation effect: Support for a two-factor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 484-494. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.484
21. Kali, Y., & Orion, N. (1996). Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 369-391. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199604)33:4<369::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-Q
22. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. (2009). Transfer of mathematical knowledge: The portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 151-155. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00096.x
23. Keehner, M., Hegarty, M., Cohen, C. A., Khooshabeh, P., & Montello, D. R. (2008). Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: What matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cognitive Science, 32, 1099-1132. doi:10.1080/03640210801898177
24. Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translation of representations of structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning and scientific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 883-903. doi:10.1002/tea.3660300807
25. Kornell, N. (2014). Attempting to answer a meaningful question enhances subsequent learning even when feedback is delayed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 106-114. doi:10.1037/a0033699
26. Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 989-998. doi:10.1037/a0015729
27. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 949-968. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9<949::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-U
28. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Multimedia learning of chemistry. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 409-428). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.027
29. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x
30. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87-113). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
31. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning:Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 587-625. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15
32. McNeil, N. M., & Uttal, D. H. (2009). Rethinking the use of concrete materials in learning: Perspectives from development and education. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 137-139. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00093.x
33. National Research Council, National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
34. Novick, L. R., & Catley, K. M. (2007). Understanding phylogenies in biology:The influence of a Gestalt perceptual principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 197-223. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.13.4.197
35. Padalkar, S., & Hegarty, M. (2013, February 7-11). Undergraduate students' understanding about representations in chemistry. In G. Nagarjuna, A. Jamakhandi, E. B. Sam (Eds.), Proceedings of Conference episteme-5 (pp. 288-294). Mumbai, India.
36. Padalkar, S., & Ramadas, J. (2011). Designed and spontaneous gestures in elementary astronomy education. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1703-1739. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.520348
37. Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science:An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26, 521-562. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1
38. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475-522. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4
39. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129-184. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1
40. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153-189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795
41. Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592-604. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
42. Stieff, M., Scopelitis, S., Lira, M., & DeSutter, D. (2013). Improving representational competence in organic chemistry with concrete models. Manuscript submitted for publication.
43. Stull, A., & Hegarty, M. (2014, April). Developing representational competence in chemistry with concrete and virtual models. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
44. Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., & Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in organic chemistry. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 404-434. doi:10.1080/07370008.2012.719956
45. Treagust, D. F., & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities (Vol. 8, pp. 239-267). New York, NY: Elsevier.