Sketching the Invisible to Predict the Visible: From Drawing to Modeling in Chemistry

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 902-920

  Cooper, Melanie M ^a   Stieff, Mike ^b   DeSutter, Dane ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Chemistry; Curriculum development; Modeling; Simulation; Sketching

Indexed keywords

CHEMISTRY; HUMAN; MOLECULAR MODEL; PROBLEM SOLVING;

CHEMISTRY; HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 85022213083     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/tops.12285     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ainsworth, S. E., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097.
2. Ainsworth, S., Stieff, M., DeSutter, D., Tytler, R., Prain, V., Panagiotopoulos, D., Wigmore, P., Heijnes, D., & Puntambekar, S. (2016). Exploring the value of drawing in learning and assessment. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) Vol. 2 (pp. 1149–1151). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
3. Bryfczynski, S. P. (2012). BeSocratic: An intelligent tutoring system for the recognition, evaluation, and analysis of free-form student input (Doctoral dissertation). Clemson University.
4. Chang, H., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94(1), 73–94.
5. Cooper, M. M., Caballero, M. D., Ebert-May, D., Fata-Hartley, C. L., Jardeleza, S. E., Krajcik, J. S., Laverty, J. T., Matz, R. L., Posey, L. A., & Underwood, S. M. (2015). Challenge faculty to transform STEM learning. Science, 350(6258), 281–282. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0933
6. Cooper, M. M., Corley, L. M., & Underwood, S. M. (2013). An investigation of college chemistry students’ understanding of structure–property relationships. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21093
7. Cooper, M. M. & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2013). Chemistry, life, the universe and everything: A new approach to general chemistry and a model for curriculum reform. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 1116–1122.
8. Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S. M., Bryfczynski, S. P., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2014). A short history of the use of technology to model and analyze student data for teaching and research. In R. Cole & D. Bunce (Eds.), Tools of chemistry education research (Vol. 1166, pp. 219–239). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
9. Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S. M., Hilley, C. Z., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2012). Development and assessment of a molecular structure and properties learning progression. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 1351–1357. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300083a.
10. Cooper, M. M., Williams, L. C., & Underwood, S. M. (2015). Student understanding of intermolecular forces: A multimodal study. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1288–1298.
11. Cromley, J. G., Bergey, B. W., Fitzhugh, S. L., Newcombe, N., Wills, T. W., Shipley, T. F., & Tanaka, J. C. (2013). Effects of three diagram instruction methods on transfer of diagram comprehension skills: The critical role of inference while learning. Learning and Instruction, 26, 45–58.
12. Ealy, J. B. (2004). Students’ understanding is enhanced through molecular modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 461–471.
13. Gagnier, K. M., Atit, K., Ormand, C. J., & Shipley, T. F. (2016). Comprehending diagrams: Sketching to support spatial reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(4), 883–901.
14. Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
15. Gobert, J. (2005). The effects of different learning tasks on conceptual understanding in science: Teasing out representational modality of diagramming versus explaining. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 444–455.
16. Habraken, C. L. (1996). Perceptions of chemistry: Why is the common perception of chemistry, the most visual of sciences, so distorted? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(3), 193–201.
17. Harle, M. & Towns, M. H. (2013). Students’ understanding of primary and secondary protein structure: Drawing secondary protein structure reveals student understanding better than simple recognition of structures. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 41(6), 369–376.
18. Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352–381.
19. Kelly, R. M., Barrera, J. H., & Mohamed, S. C. (2010). An analysis of undergraduate general chemistry students’ explanations of the submicroscopic level of precipitation reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 113–118.
20. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.
22. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
24. Levy, S. & Wilensky, U. (2009). Students’ learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1) curriculum: Navigating the complexities of the particulate world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 243–254.
25. Lloyd, B. W. & Spencer, J. N. (1994). The forum: New directions for general chemistry: Recommendations of the task force on the general chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(3), 206–209.
26. Maeyer, J. & Talanquer, V. (2010). The role of intuitive heuristics in students’ thinking: Ranking chemical substances. Science Education, 94, 963–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20397.
27. Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Identifying conceptual students in general chemistry. Chemical Education, 70(1), 52–55.
28. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
29. Prain, V. & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2751–2773.
30. Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 872–879.
31. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.
32. Stieff, M. (2005). Connected Chemistry–A novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(3), 489–493.
33. Stieff, M. (2011a). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1137–1158.
34. Stieff, M. (2011b). When is a molecule three-dimensional? A task-specific role for imagistic reasoning in advanced chemistry. Science Education, 95(2), 310–336.
35. Stieff, M., DeSutter, D., & Lira, M. (2014). The connected chemistry curriculum. In S. Goldman (Chair), Presidential Invited Session: Changing the Game: Research Innovations and the Interdisciplinary Development of Technologies for Learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA.
36. Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Dixon, B. L. (2010). Alternative strategies for spatial reasoning with diagrams. In A. K. Goel, M. Jamnik, & N. H. Narayanan (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 115–127). Berlin: Springer.
37. Stieff, M. & McCombs, M. (2006). Increasing representational fluency with visualization tools. In S. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). Vol. 1 (pp. 730–736). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Stieff, M., Nighelli, T., Yip, J., Ryan, S., & Berry, A. (2012). The connected chemistry curriculum (Vols. 1–9). Chicago: University of Illinois-Chicago.
39. Stieff, M. & Raje, S. (2010). Expert algorithmic and imagistic problem solving strategies in advanced chemistry. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 10(1), 53–81.
40. Stieff, M. & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected Chemistry-Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 12(3), 285–302.
41. Underwood, S. M., Reyes-Gastelum, D., & Cooper, M. M. (2015). Answering the questions of whether and when student learning occurs: Using discrete-time survival analysis to investigate how college chemistry students’ understanding of structure-property relationships evolves. Science Education, 99(6), 1055–1072. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21183.
42. Underwood, S. M., Reyes-Gastelum, D., & Cooper, M. M. (2016). When do students recognize relationships between molecular structure and properties? A longitudinal comparison of the impact of traditional and transformed curricula. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 365–380, https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00217F
43. Van Meter, P., & Firetto, C. M. (2013). Cognitive model of drawing construction: Learning through the construction of drawings. In G. Schraw, M. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 247–280). Scottsdale, AZ: Information Age Publishing.
44. Van Meter, P. & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325.
45. Williams, L. C., Underwood, S. M., Klymkowsky, M. W., & Cooper, M. M. (2015). Are noncovalent interactions an Achilles heel in chemistry education? A comparison of instructional approaches. Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 1979–1987. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00619.
46. Yip, J. C., Jaber, L. Z., & Stieff, M. (2011). Examining changes in students’ coordination of verbal and pictorial chemical representations in response to instruction. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
47. 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.
48. Zhang, Z. & Linn, M. C. (2013). Learning from chemical visualizations: Comparing generation and selection conditions. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2174–2197.