Drawing-to-learn: A framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Quillin, Kim ^a   Thomas, Stephen ^b  

^a SALISBURY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; HUMAN; LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; STUDENT; TEACHING; THINKING; UNIVERSITY;

BIOLOGY; HUMANS; LEARNING; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; STUDENTS; TEACHING; THINKING; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84938423224     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. Ainsworth S (2008). How should we evaluate complex multimedia environments? In: Understanding Multimedia Comprehension, ed. JF Rouet, R Lowe, and W Schnotz, New York: Springer.
2. Ainsworth S, Prain V, Tytler R (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science 333, 1096–1097.
3. Alias M, Gray DE, Black TR (2002). Attitudes toward sketching and drawing and the relationship with spatial visualisation ability in engineering students. Int Educ J 3, 165–204.
4. Allen D, Tanner K (2006). Putting the horse back in front of the cart: using visions and decisions about high-quality learning experiences to drive course design. Cell Biol Educ 6, 85–89.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011). Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action, Washington, DC.
6. Anderson JL, Ellis JP, Jones AM (2014). Understanding early elementary children’s conceptual knowledge of plant structure and function through drawings. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 375–386.
7. Anderson LW, Bourke SF (2000). Assessing Affective Characteristics in the Schools, London: Routledge.
8. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS (2001). A Taxonomy of Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York: Longman.
9. Baldwin L, Crawford I (2010). Art instruction in the botany lab: a collaborative approach. J Coll Sci Teach 40, 226–31.
10. Bassok M, Novick LR (2012). Problem solving. In: Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, ed. KJ Holyoak and RG Morrison, New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Baum DA, Offner S (2008). Phylogenics and tree-thinking. Am Biol Teach 70, 222–229.
12. Bloom BS, Krathwohl DR, Masia BB (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, New York: McKay.
13. Blumschein P, Hung W, Jonassen D, Strobel J, eds. (2009). Model-Based Approaches to Learning: Using Systems Models and Simulations to Improve Understanding and Problem Solving in Complex Domains, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
14. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Washington DC: National Academies Press.
15. Chittleborough G, Treagust DF (2007). The modeling ability of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chem Educ Res Pract 8, 274–292.
16. Chun MM, Jiang Y (1998). Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cogn Psychol 36, 28–71.
17. Cohen SA (1987). Instructional alignment: searching for a magic bullet. Educ Res 16, 816–20.
18. Coil D, Wenderoth MP, Cunningham M, Dirks C (2010). Teaching the process of science: faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 524–535.
19. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP (2008). Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 7, 368–381.
20. Darwin C (1837). Notebook B: Transmutation of Species (1837-1838). http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/record?itemID=CUL -DAR121.- (accessed 5 March 2014).
21. Dauer JT, Momsen JL, Bray Speth E, Makohon-Moore SC, Long TM (2013). Analyzing change in students’ gene-to-evolution models in college-level introductory biology. J Res Sci Teach 50, 639–659.
22. DeHaan RL (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE Life Sci Educ 8, 172–181.
23. de Jong T (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instr Sci 38, 105–134.
24. Dikmenli M (2010). Misconceptions of cell division held by student teachers in biology: a drawing analysis. Sci Res Essay 5, 235–247.
25. Eddy SL, Crowe AJ, Wenderoth MP, Freeman S (2013). How should we teach tree-thinking? An experimental test of two hypotheses. Evo Educ Outreach 6, 13.
26. Edens KM, Potter EF (2010). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School Sci Math J 103, 135–144.
27. Edwards B (1979). The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
28. Ekici F, Ekici E, Aydin F (2007). Utility of concept cartoons in diagnosing and overcoming misconceptions related to photosynthesis. Int J Environ Sci Educ 2, 111–124.
29. Frankel F (2002). Envisioning Science: The Design and Craft of the Science Image, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Frankel F, DePace AH (2012). Visual Strategies: A Practical Guide to Graphics for Scientists and Engineers, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 8410–8415.
32. Freeman S, Parks JW (2010). How accurate is peer-grading? CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 482–488.
33. Fry B (2008). Visualizing Data, Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
34. Gilbert JK, Reiner M, Nakhleh M (eds.) (2008). Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education, New York: Springer.
35. Glynn S, Muth KD (2008). Using drawing strategically: drawing activities make life science meaningful to third- and fourth-grade students. Sci Children 45, 48–51.
36. Gobert JD, Clement JJ (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. J Res Sci Teach 36, 39–53.
37. Grosslight L, Unger C, Jay E, Smith CL (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. J Res Sci Teach 28, 799–822.
38. Guida A, Lavielle-Guida M (2014). 2011 space odyssey: spatialization as a mechanism to code order allows a close encounter between memory expertise and classic immediate memory studies. Front Psych 5, 1–5.
39. Harrison AG, Treagust DF (2000). A typology of school science models. Int J Sci Educ 9, 1011–1026.
40. Hay D, Kinchin I, Lygo-Baker S (2008). Making learning visible: the role of concept mapping in higher education. Stud High Educ 33, 295–311.
41. Hay DB, Williams D, Stahl D, Wingate RJ (2013). Using drawings of the brain cell to exhibit expertise in neuroscience: exploring the boundaries of experimental culture. Sci Educ 97, 468–491.
42. Hegarty M (2011). The role of spatial thinking in undergraduate science education. Paper presented at the third Committee Meeting on Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, held December 3–4, 2010, in Irvine, CA.
43. Hmelo-Silver CE, Marathe S, Liu L (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: expert-novice understanding of complex systems. J Learn Sci 16, 307–331.
44. Hyerle D (2000). A Field Guide to Using Visual Tools, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
45. Ifenthaler D, Maskuki I, Steel NM (2011). The mystery of cognitive structure and how we can detect it: tracking the development of cognitive structures over time. Instruct Sci 39, 41–61.
46. Johnson-Laird PN (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cog Sci 4, 71–115.
47. Johnstone AH (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn 7, 75–83.
48. Jonassen D, Strobel J, Gottdenker J (2005). Model building for conceptual change. Interact Learn Environ 13, 1–215–37.
49. Kindfield ACH (1994). Biology diagrams: tools to think with. J Learn Sci 3, 1–36.
50. Kirschner PA, van Merriënboer JJG (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educ Psychol 48, 169–183.
51. Kiyokawa S, Kura Y, Uesaka Y, Manalo E (2012). Does construction of diagrams deepen understanding by raising awareness of insufficiency in learning? In: Staging Knowledge and Experience: How to Take Advantage of Representational Technologies in Education and Training? ed. E de Vries and K Scheiter, Grenoble, France: Laboratoire des Sciences de l’Education, Université Pierre-Mendès-France, 100.
52. Klein PD (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educ Psychol Rev 11, 203–270.
53. Koba S, Tweed A (2009). Hard-to-Teach Biology Concepts: A Framework to Deepen Student Understanding, Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
54. Kobella TR Jr (1989). Changing and Measuring Attitudes in the Science Classroom: Research Matters—to the Science Teacher, Publication no. 8901, Reston, VA: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
55. Köse S (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: using drawings as a research method. World Appl Sci J 3, 283–293.
56. Kress G, van Leeuwen T (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd ed., New York: Routledge.
57. Larkin JH, Simon H (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn Sci 11, 65–99.
58. Lerner N (2007). Drawing to learn science: legacies of Agassiz. J Technol Writ Com 37, 379–394.
59. Leutner D, Leopold C, Sumfleth E (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Comput Human Behav 25, 284–289.
60. Libarkin J, Ording G (2012). The utility of writing assignments in undergraduate bioscience. CBE Life Sci Educ 11, 39–46.
61. Löhner S, van Joolingen WR, Savelsbergh ER, van Hout-Wolters B (2005). Students’ reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Comput Human Behav 21, 441–461.
62. Long TM, Dauer JT, Kostelnik KM, Momsen JL, Wyse SA, Speth EB, Ebert-May D (2014). Fostering ecoliteracy through model-based instruction. Front Ecol Environ 12, 138–139.
63. Lovelace M, Brickman P (2013). Best practices for measuring students’ attitudes toward learning science. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 606–617.
64. Mayer RE (2009). Multi-media Learning, 2nd ed., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65. Mayer RE, Hegarty M, Mayer S, Campbell J (2005). When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. J Exp Psychol 4, 256–265.
66. Mayer RE, Heiser J, Lonn S (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. J Educ Psychol 93, 187–198.
67. Mayer RE, Sims VK (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol 89, 389–401.
68. Mioduser D, Santa María M (1995). Students’ construction of structured knowledge representations. J Res Comput Educ 28, 63–84.
69. Mohler DL (2007). An instructional strategy for pictorial drawing. J Indust Teach Educ 44, 5–26.
70. Mynlieff M, Manogaran AL, St. Maurice M, Eddinger TJ (2014). Writing assignments with a metacognitive component enhance learning in a large introductory biology course. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 311–321.
71. National Research Council (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, Washington DC: National Academies Press.
72. National Science Foundation (2008). Picture This: Explaining Science through Drawings. www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111410&org=NSF&from=news (accessed 5 March 2014).
73. Novak JD, Cañas AJ (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Inf Vis 5, 175–184.
74. Novick LR (2000). Spatial diagrams: key instruments in the toolbox for thought. Psychol Learn Motiv 40, 279–325.
75. Novick LR (2006). The importance of both diagrammatic conventions and domain-specific knowledge for diagram literacy in science. The hierarchy as an illustrative case. In: Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, ed. D Barker-Plummer, R Cox, and N Swoboda, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1–11.
76. Novick LR, Catley KM (2006). Interpreting hierarchical structure: evidence from cladograms in biology. In: Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. ed. D Barker-Plummer, R Cox, and N Swoboda, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 176–180.
77. Novick LR, Catley KM (2007). Understanding phylogenies in biology: the influence of Gestalt perceptual principle. J Exp Psychol 13, 197–223.
78. Padilla MJ, McKenzie DL, Shaw EL Jr (1986). An examination of the line graphing ability of students in grades seven through twelve. School Sci Math 86, 20–26.
79. Pavio A (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
80. Pelaez NJ, Boyd DD, Rojas JB, Hoover MA, Nancy J, Boyd DD, Rojas JB (2005). Prevalence of blood circulation misconceptions among prospective elementary teachers. Adv Physiol Educ 29, 172–181.
81. Picone C, Rhode J, Hyatt L, Parshall T (2007). Assessing gains in undergraduate students’ abilities to analyze graphical data. Teach Issues Exper Ecol 5, 1–54.
82. Rennie LJ, Jarvis T (1995). Children’s choice of drawings to communicate their ideas about technology. Res Sci Educ 25, 239–252.
83. Reynolds JA, Thaiss C, Katkin W, Thompson RJ Jr (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: a community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE Life Sci Educ 11, 17–25.
84. Ridley P, Rogers A (2010). Drawing to Learn: Science, Technology, Engineering & Math, Center of Teaching and Learning, Brighton, UK: University of Brighton Centre for Learning and Teaching.
85. Roam D (2008). Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures, New York: Penguin.
86. Rohrer D, Pashler H (2012). Learning styles: where’s the evidence? Med Educ 46, 34–35.
87. Rose G (2012). Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials, 3rd ed., Los Angeles: Sage.
88. Rosengrant D, Van Heuvelen A, Etkina E (2009). Do students use and understand free-body diagrams? Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 5, 010108.
89. Schönborn KJ, Anderson TR (2010). Bridging the educational research-teaching practice gap: foundations for assessing and developing biochemistry students’ visual literacy. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 38, 347–354.
90. Schwamborn A, Mayer RE, Thilmann H, Leopold C, Leutner D (2010). Drawing as generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. J Educ Psychol 102, 842–879.
91. Schwamborn A, Thillmann H, Opfermann M, Leutner D (2011). Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations. Comput Human Behav 27, 89–93.
92. Schwarz CV, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Kenyon L, Achér A, Fortus D, Scwartz Y, Hug B, Krajcik J (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. J Res Sci Teach 46, 632–654.
93. Seel NM (2003). Model-centered learning and instruction. Technol Instruct Cogn Learn 1, 59–85.
94. Shepardson DP, Niyogi D, Charusombat U (2011). Seventh grade students’ mental models of the greenhouse effect. Environ Educ Res 17, 1–17.
95. Shepardson DP, Niyogi D, Choi S, Charusombat U (2009). Seventh grade students’ conceptions of global warming and climate change. Environ Educ Res 15, 549–570.
96. Stephens S (2012). From tree to map: using cognitive learning theory to suggest alternative ways to visualize macroevolution. Evol Educ Outreach 5, 603–618.
97. Stern E, Aprea C, Ebner HG (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learn Instruct 13, 191–203.
98. Stow W (1997). Concept mapping as a tool for self-assessment? Prim Sci Rev 49, 12–15.
99. Sweller J (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci 12, 257–285.
100. Tanner KD (2009). Talking to learn: why biology students should be talking in classrooms and how to make it happen. CBE Life Sci Educ 8, 89–94.
101. Tempelman-Kluit N (2006). Multimedia learning theories and online instruction. Coll Res Libr 67, 364–369.
102. Trujillo G, Tanner KD (2014). Considering the role of affect in learning: monitoring students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and science identity. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 6–15.
103. Tufte ER (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
104. Tufte ER (1990). Envisioning Information, Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
105. Tufte ER (2003). Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative, 2nd ed., Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
106. Uesaka Y, Manalo E (2011). Task-related factors that influence the spontaneous use of diagrams in math word problems. Appl Cogn Psychol 26, 251–260.
107. Uesaka Y, Manalo E, Ichikawa S (2007). What kinds of perceptions and daily learning behaviors promote students’ use of diagrams in mathematics problem solving? Learn Instr 17, 322–335.
108. Van Meter P, Aleksic M, Schwartz A, Garner J (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemp Educ Psychol 31, 142–166.
109. Van Meter P, Garner J (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: literature review and synthesis. Educ Psychol Rev 17, 285–325.
110. Watson FL, Lom B (2008). More than a picture: helping undergraduates learn to communicate through scientific images. CBE Life Sci Educ 7, 27–35.
111. Wiggins G, McTighe J (1998). Understanding by Design, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
112. Wright LK, Fisk JN, Newman DL (2014). DNA → RNA: What do students think the arrows mean? CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 338–348.