Promoting Representational Competence with Molecular Models in Organic Chemistry

Journal of Chemical Education

Volumn 93, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 994-1001

  Stull, Andrew T ^a   Gainer, Morgan ^a   Padalkar, Shamin ^b   Hegarty, Mary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b TATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES   (India)

Author keywords

Computer Based Learning; Curriculum; Manipulatives; Molecular Modeling; Organic Chemistry; Second Year Undergraduate

Indexed keywords

EID: 84974851721     PISSN: 00219584     EISSN: 19381328     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00194     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Gilbert, J. K. Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education; Springer: Dordrecht, Germany, 2008; pp 3-24.
2. Gilbert, J. K.; Treagust, D. F.. Macro, submicro and symolic representations and the relationships between them: Key models in chemical education. In Multiple Representations in Chemical Education; Gilbert, J. K., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, Germany, 2009; pp 1-8.
3. Kozma, R.; Russell, J. Multimedia and Understanding: Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 949-968 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9<949::AID-TEA7>3.3.CO;2-F
4. Kali, Y.; Orion, N. Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1996, 33, 369-391 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199604)33:4<369::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-Q
5. Wu, H.-K.; Shah, P. Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 465-492 10.1002/sce.10126
6. Padalkar, S.; Hegarty, M. Models as Feedback: Developing Representational Competence in Chemistry J. Ed Psych. 2015, 107 (2) 451-467 10.1037/a0037516
7. Stull, A. T.; Hegarty, M. Model manipulation and learning: Fostering representational competence with virtual and concrete models Journal of Educational Psychology 2016, 108, 509-527 10.1037/edu0000077
8. Stull, A. T.; Hegarty, M.; Dixon, B.; Stieff, M. Representational Translation with Concrete Models in Organic Chemistry Cogn. Instr. 2012, 30, 404-434 10.1080/07370008.2012.719956
9. Barnea, N. Teaching and learning about chemistry and modeling with computer managed modeling system. In Exploring Models in Science Education; Gilbert, J. K.; Boutler, C. J., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishing: Dordrecht: Germany, 2000; pp 307-323.
10. Barnea, N.; Dori, Y. J. Computerized molecular modeling as a tool to improve chemistry teaching J. Chem. Infor. Comp. 1996, 36, 629-636 10.1021/ci950122o
11. Horowitz, G.; Schwartz, G. Exploring organic mechanistic puzzles with molecular modeling J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81 (8) 1136-1139 10.1021/ed081p1136
12. Jones, M. B. Molecular Modeling in the Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (7) 867-868 10.1021/ed078p867
13. Springer, M. T. Improving Students' Understanding of Molecular Structure through Broad-Based Use of Computer Models in the Undergraduate Organic Chemistry Lecture J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1162-1168 10.1021/ed400054a
14. Stieff, M.; Scopelitis, S.; Lira, M. E.; DeSutter, D. Improving Representational Competence with Concrete Models Sci. Educ. 2016, 100 (2) 344-363 10.1002/sce.21203
15. Cheng, M.; Gilbert, J. K. Towards a better utilization of diagrams in research in- to the use of representative levels of chemical education. In Multiple representations in chemical education: Models and modeling in science education; Gilbert, J. K.; Treagust, D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, Germany, 2009.
16. Goodwin, W. M. Structural formulas and explanation in organic chemistry Found. Chem. 2008, 10, 117-127 10.1007/s10698-007-9033-2
17. Strickland, A. M.; Kraft, A.; Bhattacharyya, G. What happens when representations fail to represent? Graduate students' mental models of organic chemistry diagrams Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11 (4) 293 10.1039/C0RP90009E
18. Harle, M.; Towns, M. A Review of Spatial Ability Literature, Its Connection to Chemistry, And Implications for Instruction J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (3) 351-360 10.1021/ed900003n
19. Keig, P. F.; Rubba, P. A. Translation of Representations of the Structure of Matter and Its Relationship to Reasoning, Gender, Spatial Reasoning, and Specific Prior Knowledge J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1993, 30 (8) 883-903 10.1002/tea.3660300807
20. Kozma, R. The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding Learn. Inst. 2003, 13, 205-226 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X
21. Shah, P.; Miyake, a. The Separability of Working Memory Resources for Spatial Thinking and Language Processing: An Individual Differences Approach J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1996, 125 (1) 4-27 10.1037/0096-3445.125.1.4
22. Tversky, B. Visuospatial Reasoning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning; Holyoak, K. J.; Morrison, R., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2005; pp 209-241.
23. Kirsh, D.; Maglio, P. On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action Cog. Sci. 1994, 18 (4) 513-549 10.1207/s15516709cog1804-1
24. Chandler, P.; Sweller, J. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction Cog. Inst. 1991, 8, 293-332 10.1207/s1532690xci0804-2
25. Wu, H.; Krajcik, J. S.; Soloway, E. Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2001, 38, 821-842 10.1002/tea.1033
26. Savec, V. F.; Vrtacnik, M.; Gilbert, J. K. Evaluating the educational value of molecular structure representations. In Visualization in science education; Gilbert, J. K., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, Germany, 2005; pp 269-300.
27. Copolo, C.; Hounshell, P. B. Using Three-Dimensional Models to Teach Molecular Structures in High School Chemistry J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 1995, 4, 295-305 10.1007/BF02211261
28. Ainsworth, S. DEFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations Learn. Instru. 2006, 16, 183-198 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
29. Cohen, R. L. Memory for action events: The power of enactment Ed. Psy. Rev. 1989, 1, 57-80 10.1007/BF01326550
30. Engelkamp, J.; Zimmer, H. D.; Mohr, G.; Sellen, O. Memory of self-performed tasks: Self-performing during recognition Mem. Cog. 1994, 22, 34-39 10.3758/BF03202759
31. Mulligan, N. W.; Hornstein, S. L. Memory for actions: self-performed tasks and the reenactment effect Memory & Cognition 2003, 31 (3) 412-21 10.3758/BF03194399
32. Barsalou, L. W.; Kyle Simmons, W.; Barbey, A. K.; Wilson, C. D. Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems Trends Cognit. Sci. 2003, 7 (2) 84-91 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3
33. Anastopoulou, S.; Sharples, M.; Baber, C. An Evaluation of Multimodal Interactions with Technology While Learning Science Concepts Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2011, 42 (2) 266-290 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01017.x
34. Minogue, J.; Jones, M. G. Haptics in Education: Exploring an Untapped Sensory Modality Rev. Educ. Res. 2006, 76 (3) 317-348 10.3102/00346543076003317
35. Bivall, P.; Ainsworth, S. E.; Tibell, L. A. E. Do Haptic Representations Help Complex Molecular Learning? Sci. Educ. 2011, 95 (4) 700-719 10.1002/sce.20439
36. Vandenberg, S.; Kuse, A. Mental rotation, a group test of 3-D spatial visualization Perc. Motor Skills 1978, 47, 599-604 10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599
37. Gentner, D. Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy Cogn. Sci. 1983, 7 (2) 155-170 10.1207/s15516709cog0702-3
38. Markman, A. B.; Gentner, D. Structural alignment during similarity comparisons Cognitive Psychology 1993, 25, 431-467 10.1006/cogp.1993.1011
39. Brown, A. L.; Campione, J. C.; Day, J. D. Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts Educ Res. 1981, 10, 14-21 10.3102/0013189X010002014
40. Dunning, D.; Johnson, K.; Ehrlinger, J.; Kruger, J. Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence Current Directions on Psych. Sci. 2003, 12, 83-87 10.1111/1467-8721.01235
41. Bjork, R. A. Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In Attention and performance XV11; Gopher, D.; Koriat, A., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1999; pp 435-459.
42. Rozenblit and Keil, 2002 Rozenblit, L.; Keil, F. The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth Cognitive Science 2002, 26, 521-562 10.1207/s15516709cog2605-1
43. Bjork, E. L.; DeWinstanley, P. A.; Storm, B. C. Learning how to learn: Can experiencing the outcome of different encoding strategies enhance subsequent encoding? Psy. Bull. Rev. 2007, 14, 207-211 10.3758/BF03194053
44. de Winstanley, P. A.; Bjork, E. L. Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader Mem. Cog. 2004, 32, 945-955 10.3758/BF03196872
45. Yelland, N.; Masters, J. Rethinking scaffolding in the information age Comp. Educ. 2007, 48, 362-382 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.010
46. Collins, A.; Halverson, R. Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and the Schools; Teachers College Press: New York, 2009.
47. Barnea, N.; Dori, Y. J. Computerized Molecular Modeling as a Tool To Improve Chemistry Teaching J. of Chem. Inf and Comp Sci. 1996, 36 (95) 629-636 10.1021/ci950122o
48. Dori and Barak, 2001 Dori, Y. J.; Barak, M. Visual and physical molecular modeling: fostering model perception and spatial understanding Edu. Technol. Soc. 2001, 4 (1) 61-74
49. Stull, A. T.; Barrett, T. J.; Hegarty, M. Usability of concrete and virtual models in chemistry instruction Comp. Hum. Beh. 2013, 29, 2546-2556 10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.012
50. Kozak, J. J.; Hancock, P. A.; Arthur, E. J.; Chrysler, S. T. Transfer of Training from Virtual Reality Ergonomics 1993, 36 (7) 777-784 10.1080/00140139308967941
51. Satava, R. M. Emerging Technologies for Surgery in the 21st Century Arch. Surg. 1999, 134 (11) 1197-1202 10.1001/archsurg.134.11.1197
52. Triona, L. M.; Klahr, D. Point and Click or Grab and Heft: Comparing the Influence of Physical and Virtual Instructional Materials on Elementary School Students' Ability to Design Experiments Cogn. Instr. 2003, 21 (2) 149-173 10.1207/S1532690XCI2102-02
53. Arsenault, R.; Ware, C. The Importance of Stereo and Eye Coupled Perspective for Eye-Hand Coordination in Fish Tank VR Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2004, 13 (5) 549-559 10.1162/1054746042545300
54. Ware, C.; Rose, J. Rotating Virtual Objects with Real Handles ACM Trans. Comput. Interact. 1999, 6 (2) 162-180 10.1145/319091.319102
55. Patterson, R.; Silzars, A. Immersive Stereo Displays, Intuitive Reasoning, and Cognitive Engineering J. Soc. Inf. Disp. 2009, 17 (5) 443-448 10.1889/JSID17.5.443
56. Zacharia, Z. C.; Loizou, E.; Papaevripidou, M. Is Physicality an Important Aspect of Learning through Science Experimentation among Kindergarten Students? Early Child. Res. Q. 2012, 27 (3) 447-457 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.004
57. Burrmann, N. J.; Moore, J. W. Implementation and Student Testing of a Web-Based, Student-Centered Stereochemical Tutorial J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (7) 1179-1187 10.1021/ed500635d
58. Small, M. Y.; Morton, M. E. Spatial Visualization Training Improves Performance in Organic Chemistry J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1983, 13 (1) 41-73
59. Stieff, M.; Ryu, M.; Dixon, B.; Hegarty, M. The Role of Spatial Ability and Strategy Preference for Spatial Problem Solving in Organic Chemistry J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (7) 854-859 10.1021/ed200071d