Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 355–369 | Cite as

Using Drawing Technology to Assess Students’ Visualizations of Chemical Reaction Processes

Article

Abstract

In this study, we investigated how students used a drawing tool to visualize their ideas of chemical reaction processes. We interviewed 30 students using thinking-aloud and retrospective methods and provided them with a drawing tool. We identified four types of connections the students made as they used the tool: drawing on existing knowledge, incorporating dynamic aspects of chemical processes, linking a visualization to the associated chemical phenomenon, and connecting between the visualization and chemistry concepts. We also compared students who were able to create dynamic visualizations with those who only created static visualizations. The results indicated a relationship between students constructing a dynamic view of chemical reaction processes and their understanding of chemical reactions. This study provides insights into the use of visualizations to support instruction and assessment to facilitate students’ integrated understanding of chemical reactions.

Keywords

Understanding Visualization Chemical reaction Secondary education 

References

  1. Abraham MR, Williamson VM, Westbrook SL (1994) A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. J Res Sci Teach 31:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahtee M, Varjola I (1998) Students’ understanding of chemical reaction. Int J Sci Educ 20:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth S, Loizou A (2003) The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cogn Sci 27:669–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ainsworth S, Prain V, Tytler R (2011) Drawing to learn in science. Science 333:1096–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson B (1986) Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Sci Educ 70:549–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandrasegaran AL, Treagust DF (2009) Emphasizing multiple levels of representation to enhance students’ understandings of the changes occurring during chemical reactions. J Chem Educ 86:1433–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang H-Y, Linn MC (2013) Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. J Res Sci Teach 50:858–886Google Scholar
  8. Chang H-Y, Quintana C (2006) Student-generated animations: supporting middle school students’ visualization, interpretation and reasoning of chemical phenomena. In: Barab SA, Hay KE, Hickey DT (eds) Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences: making a difference, vol 1. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN, pp 71–77Google Scholar
  9. Chang H-Y, Quintana C, Krajcik JS (2010) The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Sci Educ 94:73–94Google Scholar
  10. Cheng M, Gilbert JK (2009) Towards a better utilization of diagrams in research into the use of representative levels in chemical education. In: Gilbert JK, Treagust DF (eds) Multiple representations in chemical education, vol 4. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Vos W, Verdonk AH (1987) A new road to reactions. J Chem Educ 64:692–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. diSessa AA (2004) Meta-representation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cogn Instr 22:293–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Driver R (1985) Beyond appearances: the conservation of matter under physical and chemical transformations. In: Driver R (ed) Children’s ideas in science. Open University Press, Philadelphia, pp 145–169Google Scholar
  14. Driver R, Squires A, Rushworth P, Wood-Robinson V (1994) Making sense of secondary science. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Frailich M, Kesner M, Hofstein A (2009) Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. J Res Sci Teach 46:289–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freyd JJ (1987) Dynamic mental representations. Psychol Rev 94:427–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabel D (1993) Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. J Chem Educ 70:193–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gabel D, Bunce D (1994) Research on problem solving: chemistry. In: Gabel D (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. MacMillian, New York, pp 301–326Google Scholar
  19. Gilbert JK (2008) Visualization: an emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In: Gilbert JK, Reiner M, Nakhleh M (eds) Visualization: theory and practice in science education, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert JK, Treagust DF (2009) Toward a coherent model for macro, submicro and symbolic representations in chemical education. In: Gilbert JK, Treagust DF (eds) Multiple representations in chemical education, vol 4. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hegarty M (1992) Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. J Exp Psychol 18:1084–1102Google Scholar
  22. Hegarty M, Kriz S, Cate C (2003) The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cogn Instr 21:325–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hesse JJ, Anderson CW (1992) Students’ conceptions of chemical change. J Res Sci Teach 29:277–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoffler TN, Leutner D (2007) Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learn Instr 17:722–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnstone AH (1991) Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn 7:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnstone AH (2000) Teaching of chemistry: logical or psychological? Chem Educ: Res Pract Eur 1:9–15Google Scholar
  27. Karacop A, Doymus K (2013) Effects of jigsaw cooperative learning and animation techniques on students’ understanding of chemical bonding and their conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. J Sci Educ Technol 22:186–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelly RM, Jones LL (2007) Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’ explanations. J Sci Educ Technol 16:413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kern AL, Wood NB, Roehrig GH, Nyachwaya J (2010) A qualitative report of the ways high school chemistry students attempt to represent a chemical reaction at the atomic/molecular level. Chem Educ Res Pract 11:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kozma RB (2003) The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learn Instr 13:205–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kozma RB, Russell J (2005) Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. In: Gilbert JK (ed) Visualization in science education. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kozma RB, Russell J, Jones T, Marx N, Davis J (1996) The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In: Vosniadou S, Corte ED, Glaser R, Mandl H (eds) International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 41–60Google Scholar
  33. Krajcik JS (1991) Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. In: Glynn SM, Yeany RH, Britton BK (eds) The psychology of learning science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 117–147Google Scholar
  34. Levy D (2012) How dynamic visualization technology can support molecular reasoning. J Sci Educ Technol. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9424-6 Google Scholar
  35. Linn MC (2006) The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 243–264Google Scholar
  36. Miller D, Linn MC (2013) How does traditional science education assess visual and spatial thinking? Paper presented in session “using visual and spatial thinking in science education” at the 2013 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  37. Naah BM, Sanger MJ (2013) Investigating students’ understanding of the dissolving process. J Sci Educ Technol 22:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nakhleh MB (1992) Why some students don’t learn chemistry: chemical misconceptions. J Chem Educ 69:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Research Council (2007) Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council (2011) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  41. Olson DR (2003) Psychological theory and educational reform. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Parnafes O (2010) Representational practices in the activity of student-generated representations (SGR) for promoting conceptual understanding. Paper presented at the 9th international conference of the learning sciences, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  43. Roy M, Chi MTH (2005) The self-explanation principle in multi-media learning. In: Mayer RE (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rutten N, van Joolingen WR, van der Veen JT (2012) The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Comput Educ 58:136–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schank P, Kozma RB (2002) Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. J Comput Math Sci Teach 21:253–279Google Scholar
  46. Schwarz CV, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, 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. J Res Sci Teach 46:632–654Google Scholar
  47. Stains M, Talanquer V (2008) Classification of chemical reactions: stage of expertise. J Res Sci Teach 45:771–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stavridou H, Solomonidou C (1998) Conceptual reorganization and the construction of the chemical reaction concept during secondary education. Int J Sci Educ 20:205–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tasker R, Dalton R (2008) Visualizing the molecular world—design, evaluation, and use of animations. In: Gilbert JK, Reiner M, Nakhleh M (eds) Visualization: theory and practice in science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 103–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Treagust DF, Chittleborough G (2001) Chemistry: a matter of understanding representations. In: Brophy J (ed) Subject-specific instructional methods and activities, vol 8. JAI An Imprint of Elsevier Science, New York, pp 239–267Google Scholar
  51. Tversky B, Morrison JB, Betrancourt M (2002) Animation: can it facilitate? Int J Hum Comput Stud 57:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Someren MW, Barnard YF, Sandberg JAC (1994) The think aloud method: a practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press Inc., San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  53. Varma K, Linn MC (2012) Using interactive technology to support students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming. J Sci Educ Technol 21:453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wu H-K (2002) Middle school students’ development of inscriptional practices in inquiry-based science classrooms. Unpublished dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu H-K, Krajcik J, Soloway E (2001) Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. J Res Sci Teach 38:821–842Google Scholar
  56. Xie Q, Tinker R (2006) Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. J Chem Educ 83:77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Xie Q, Tinker R, Tinker B, Pallant A, Damelin D, Berenfeld B (2011) Computational experiments for science education. Science 332:1516–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang Z, Linn MC (2011) Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? J Res Sci Teach 48:1177–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science Education and Environmental EducationNational Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.College of Education and College of Natural ScienceMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations