Enhancing undergraduate chemistry learning by helping students make connections among multiple graphical representations

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 654-669

  Rau, Martina A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937415265     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c5rp00065c     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Ainsworth S., (2006), DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations, Learn. Instr., 16, 183-198.
2. Airey J. and Linder C., (2009), A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46, 27-49.
3. Aleven V. A. W. M. M. and Koedinger K. R., (2002), An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor, Cognitive Sci., 26, 147-179.
4. Aleven V., McLaren B. M., Sewall J. and Koedinger K. R., (2009), A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: example-tracing tutors, Int. J. Artif. Intelligence in Educ., 19, 105-154.
5. Anderson J. R., Corbett A. T., Koedinger K. R. and Pelletier R., (1995), Cognitive tutors: lessons learned, J. Learn. Sci., 4, 167-207.
6. Atkinson R. K., Renkl A. and Merrill M. M., (2003), Transitioning From Studying Examples to Solving Problems: Effects of Self-Explanation Prompts and Fading Worked-Out Steps., Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774-783.
7. Bergqvist A., Drechsler M., de Jong O. and Chang Rundgren S. N., (2013), Representations of chemical bonding models in school textbooks-help or hindrance for understanding? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14, 589-606.
8. Bodemer D. and Faust U., (2006), External and mental referencing of multiple representations, Comput. Hum. Behav., 22, 27-42.
9. Bodner G. M. and Domin D. S., (2000), Mental models: the role of representations in problem solving in chemistry, University Chemistry Education, 4, 24-30.
10. Bowen C. W., (1990), Representational systems used by graduate students while problem solving in organic synthesis, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 27, 351-370.
11. Brown T. L., LeMay H. E., Bursten B. E., Murphy C. J. and Woodward P. M., (2011), Chemistry - the central science, Prentice Hall.
12. Cheng M. and Gilbert J. K., (2009), in Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D. F. (ed.), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 191-208.
13. Chi M. T. H., Feltovitch P. J. and Glaser R., (1981), Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices, Cognitive Sci., 5, 121-152.
14. Chung W. C., (2013), Three-dimensional atomic orbital plots in the classroom using Winplot, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 1090-1092.
15. Cohen J., (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Cooper M. M., Underwood S. M. and Hilley C. Z., (2012), Development and validation of the implicit information from Lewis structures instrument (IILSI): do students connect structures with properties? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13, 195-200.
17. Corbett A. and Anderson J., (2001), Proceedings of CHI 2001, ACM Press.
18. Corbett A. T., Koedinger K. and Hadley W. S., (2001), in Goodman P. S. (ed.), Technology enhanced learning: opportunities for change., Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 235-263.
19. Davidowitz B. and Chittleborough G., (2009), in Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D. F. (ed.), Multiple representations in chemical education, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 169-191.
20. De Jong O. and Taber K. S., (2014), in Lederman N. and Abell S. K. (ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 457-480.
21. Dori Y. J. and Barak M., (2001), Virtual and physical molecular modeling: fostering model perception and spatial understanding, Educational Technology & Society, 4, 61-74.
22. Eastwood M. L., (2013), Fastest fingers: a molecule-building game for teaching organic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 1038-1041.
23. Eichler J. F. and Peeples J., (2013), Online Homework Put to the Test: A Report on the Impact of Two Online Learning Systems on Student Performance in General Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 1137-1143, DOI: 10.1021/ed3006264.
24. Eilam B., (2013), in Treagust D. F. and Tsui C.-Y. (ed.), Multiple Representations in Biological Education, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 55-73.
25. Furio C., Calatayud M. L., Barcenas S. L. and Padilla O. M., (2000), Functional fixedness and function reduction as common sense reasonings in chemical equilibrium and in geometry and polarity of molecules, Sci. Educ., 84, 545-565.
26. Gadgil S., Nokes-Malach T. J. and Chi M. T., (2012), Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change, Learn. Instr., 22, 47-61.
27. Gegenfurtner A., Lehtinen E. and Säljö R., (2011), Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: a meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 23, 523-552.
28. Gibson E. J., (1969), Principles of perceptual learning and development, New York: Prentice Hall.
29. Gibson E. J., (2000), Perceptual learning in development: some basic concepts, Ecol. Psychol., 12, 295-302.
30. Goldstone R. L. and Barsalou L. W., (1998), Reuniting perception and conception, Cognition, 65, 231-262.
31. Hinze S. R., Williamson V. M., Deslongchamps G., Shultz M. J., Williamson K. C. and Rapp D. N., (2013), Textbook treatments of electrostatic potential maps in general and organic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 1275-1281.
32. Höst G. E., Schönborn K. J. and Palmerius K. E. L., (2012), Students' Use of Three Different Visual Representations To Interpret Whether Molecules Are Polar or Nonpolar, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 1499-1505.
33. Johnson C. I. and Mayer R. E., (2010), Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment, Comput. Hum. Behav., 26, 1246-1252.
34. Johnstone A. H., (1991), Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem, J. Comput. Assist. Lear., 7, 75-83.
35. Justi R., Gilbert J. K. and Ferreira P. F., (2009), in Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D. F. (ed.), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 285-307.
36. Kellman P. J. and Garrigan P. B., (2009), Perceptual learning and human expertise, Phys. Life Rev., 6, 53-84.
37. Kellman P. J. and Massey C. M., (2013), Perceptual Learning, cognition, and expertise, Psychol. Learn. Motiv., 558, 117-165.
38. Kellman P. J., Massey C. M. and Son J. Y., (2009), Topics in Cognitive Science, vol. 2, pp. 285-305.
39. Koedinger K. R., Corbett A. T. and Perfetti C., (2012), The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science-Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning, Cognitive Sci., 36, 757-798.
40. Kozma R. B. and Russell J., (1997), Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 34, 949-968.
41. Kozma R. and Russell J., (2005a), in Mayer R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 409-428.
42. Kozma R. and Russell J., (2005b), in Gilbert J. (ed.), Visualization in science education, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 121-145.
43. Kozma R., Chin E., Russell J. and Marx N., (2000), The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning, J. Learn. Sci., 9, 105-143.
44. Linenberger K. J. and Bretz S. L., (2012), Generating cognitive dissonance in student interviews through multiple representations, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13, 172-178.
45. Loudon M., (2009), Organic Chemistry, Roberts and Company Publishers.
46. Luxford C. J., (2013), Use of multiple representations to explore students' understandings of covalent and ionic bonding as measured by the bonding representations inventory, Doctoral dissertation, Miami University.
47. Luxford C. J., Crowder M. W. and Bretz S. L., (2011), A Symmetry POGIL Activity for inorganic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 211-214.
48. Massey C. M., Kellman P. J., Roth Z. and Burke T., (2011), in Stein N. L. and Raudenbush S. W. (ed.), Developmental cognitive science goes to school, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 235-249.
49. Matta C. F. and Gillespie R. J., (2002), Understanding and interpreting molecular electron density distributions, J. Chem. Educ., 79, 1141-1152.
50. Michalchik V., Rosenquist A., Kozma R., Kreikemeier P. and Schank P., (2008), in Gilbert J. K., Reiner M. and Nakhleh M. B. (ed.), Visualization: theory and practice in science education, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 233-282.
51. Moore J. W., Stanitski C. L. and Jurs P. C., (2010), Chemistry: The Molecular Science, Cengage Learning.
52. Moreira R. F., (2013), A Game for the early and rapid assimilation of organic nomenclature, J. Chem. Educ., 1035-1037.
53. Peters M., Laeng B., Latham K., Jackson M., Zaiyouna R. and Richardson C., (1995), A Redrawn Vandenberg & Kuse Mental Rotations Test: Different Versions and Factors that affect Performance, Brain Cognition, 28, 39-58.
54. Rau M. A., (under review), A Framework for Discipline-Specific Grounding of Educational Technologies with Multiple Visual Representations, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, submitted.
55. Rau M. A., Aleven V., Rummel N. and Pardos Z., (2014), How Should Intelligent Tutoring Systems Sequence Multiple Graphical Representations of Fractions? A Multi-Methods Study, Int. J. Artif. Intelligence Educ., 24, 125-161.
56. Rau M. A., Michaelis J. E. and Fay N., (2015), Connection making between multiple graphical representations: a multi-methods approach for domain-specific grounding of an intelligent tutoring system for chemistry, Comput. Educ., 82, 460-485.
57. Richman H. B., Gobet F., Staszewski J. J. and Simon H. A., (1996), in Ericsson K. A. (ed.), The road to excellence? The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associatees, pp. 167-187.
58. Ritter S., Anderson J. R., Koedinger K. R. and Corbett A. T., (2007), Cognitive tutor: applied research in mathematics education, Psychon. Bull. Rev., 14, 249-255.
59. Schönborn K. J. and Anderson T. R., (2006), The importance of visual literacy in the education of biochemists, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 34, 94-102.
60. Seufert T., (2003), Supporting Coherence Formation in Learning from Multiple Representations, Learn. Instr., 13, 227-237.
61. Shanks D., (2005), in Lamberts K. and Goldstone R. (ed.), Handbook of Cognition, London: Sage, pp. 202-220.
62. Shusterman G. P. and Shusterman A. J., (1997), Teaching chemistry with electron density models, J. Chem. Educ., 74, 771-776.
63. Stieff M., (2005), Connected chemistry - a novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom, J. Chem. Educ., 82, 489-493.
64. Stieff M., (2007), Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science, Learn. Instr., 17, 219-234.
65. Stieff M., (2013), Sex differences in the mental rotation of chemistry representations, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 165-170.
66. Stieff M., Hegarty M. and Deslongchamps G., (2011), Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays, Cognition and Instruct., 29, 123-145.
67. Strickland A. M., Kraft A. and Bhattacharyya G., (2010), What happens when representations fail to represent? Graduate students' mental models of organic chemistry diagrams, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11, 293-301.
68. Taber K. S., (2009), in Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D. F. (ed.), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 75-105.
69. Taber K. S., (2013), Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14, 156-168.
70. Talanquer V., (2013), Chemistry education: ten facets to shape us, J. Res. Math. Educ., 90, 832-838.
71. Uttal D. H. and O'DohertyK., (2008), in Gilbert J.(ed.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 53-72.
72. Uttal D. H., Meadow N. G., Tipton E., Hand L. L., Alden A. R., Warren C. and Newcombe N. S., (2013), The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies, Psychol. Bull., 139, 352-402.
73. van der Meij J. and de Jong T., (2006), Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment, Learn. Instr., 16, 199-212.
74. Van der Meij J. and de Jong T., (2011), The effects of directive self-explanation prompts to support active processing of multiple representations in a simulation-based learning environment, J. Comput. Assist. Lear., 27, 411-423.
75. VanLehn K., (2011), The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems and other tutoring systems, Educ. Psychol., 46, 197-221.
76. Wai J., Lubinski D. and Benbow C. P., (2009), Spatial ability for STEM domains: aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance, J. Educ. Psychol., 101, 817-835.
77. Wibraham A. C., (2005), Chemistry, Prentice Hall.
78. Williamson V. M., (2014), in Devetak I. and Aleksij S. Dordrecht (ed.), Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 193-208.
79. Wu H. K. and Shah P., (2004), Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning, Sci. Educ., 88, 465-492.
80. Wu H. K., Krajcik J. S. and Soloway E., (2001), Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 38, 821-842.