Ensuring that all students, including English language learners (ELLs) who speak English as a second language, succeed in science is more challenging with a shift towards learning through language-intensive science practices suggested by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Interactive visualization technologies have the potential to support science learning for all students, including ELLs, by providing explicit representations of unobservable scientific systems. However, whether and how such technologies can be beneficial for these underserved students has not been sufficiently investigated. In this study, we examine the short-term and long-term effects of interactive visualizations in improving linguistically diverse eighth-grade students’ understanding of properties of matter and chemical reactions during inquiry instruction. The results show that after interacting with the visualizations, both ELLs and non-ELLs showed significant improvement in their understanding of the target concepts at the molecular level on both the immediate test and the delayed test (3 months after the study). In particular, aligned with the goals of the NGSS, all students, including ELLs, were able to demonstrate their understanding of how energy and matter are involved in chemistry through developing molecular models, critiquing models, and constructing scientific explanations. This study shows the potential benefits of using interactive visualizations during inquiry instruction as a resource to help all students, including ELLs who are traditionally underserved in mainstream classrooms, develop a more coherent understanding of abstract concepts of molecular processes during chemical phenomena.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 1–28.
Abraham, M. R., Grzybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W., & Marek, E. A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105–120.
Ainsworth, S., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 241–255.
Allexsaht-Snider, M., Buxton, C. A., Rodríguez, Y. H., Cardozo-Gaibisso, L., Cohen, A., & Lu, Z. (2017). Crosscutting findings and recommendations for research and practice in teaching science with emergent bilingual learners. In C. Buxton & M. Allexsaht-Snider (Eds.), Supporting K-12 English language learners in science: Putting research into teaching practice (pp. 211–242). New York: Routledge.
Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils’ conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12-16). Studies in Science Education, 18(1), 53–85.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.
Bar, V., & Travis, A. S. (1991). Children’s views concerning phase changes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 363–382.
Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium: What written test answers do not reveal. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(12), 1000–1003.
Brown, B. A. (2006). “It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff”: Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 96–126.
Bunch, G. C. (2006). “Academic English” in the 7th grade: Broadening the lens, expanding access. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 284–301.
Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341.
Buxton, C. (1999). Designing a model-based methodology for science instruction: Lessons from a bilingual classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 23(2–3), 147–177.
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. Future of Children, 21(1), 103–127.
Chang, H. Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). 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.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Dixon, J. K. (1995). Limited English proficiency and spatial visualization in middle school students’ construction of the concepts of reflection and rotation. Bilingual Research Journal, 19(2), 221–247.
Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Language and literacy development in bilingual settings. New York: The Guilford Press.
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.
Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25(1), 69–96.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.
González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2016). Learning in a community of practice: Factors impacting English-learning students’ engagement in scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 527–553.
Hadenfeldt, J. C., Neumann, K., Bernholt, S., Liu, X., & Parchmann, I. (2016). Students’ progression in understanding the matter concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 683–708.
Hakuta, K. (2014). Assessment of content and language in light of the new standards: Challenges and opportunities for English language learners. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(4), 433–441.
Herron, J. D. (1996). The chemistry classroom: Formulas for successful teaching. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738.
Höffler, T. N., & Schwartz, R. N. (2011). Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1716–1726.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27–40.
Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2003). The use of argumentation in Haitian Creole science classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 73–93.
Johnson, E., & Monroe, B. (2004). Simplified language as an accommodation on math tests. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(3), 35–45.
Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lee, O. (2018). English language proficiency standards aligned with content standards. Educational Researcher. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18763775
Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students' conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249–270.
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.
Lee, O., Miller, E., & Januszyk, R. (2014). Next Generation Science Standards: All standards, all students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 223–233.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
Levy, D. (2013). How dynamic visualization technology can support molecular reasoning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 702–717.
Levy, S. T., & 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.
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.
Liu, H., Andre, T., & Greenbowe, T. (2008). The impact of learner’s prior knowledge on their use of chemistry computer simulations: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 466–482.
Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33–55.
Lyon, E. G., Bunch, G. C., & Shaw, J. M. (2012). Navigating the language demands of an inquiry-based science performance assessment: Classroom challenges and opportunities for English language learners. Science Education, 96(4), 631–651.
MacDonald, R., Miller, E., & Lord, S. (2017). Doing and talking science: Engaging ELLs in the discourse of the science and engineering practices. In A. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp. 179–197). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Markic, S., Broggy, J., & Childs, P. (2013). How to deal with linguistic issues in chemistry classes. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry-A studybook (pp. 127–152). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Martiniello, M. (2009). Linguistic complexity, schematic representations, and differential item functioning for English language learners in math tests. Educational Assessment, 14(3–4), 160–179.
Moore, E. B., Chamberlain, J. M., Parson, R., & Perkins, K. K. (2014). PhET interactive simulations: Transformative tools for teaching chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1191–1197.
Nakhleh, M. B., Samarapungavan, A., & Saglam, Y. (2005). Middle school students’ beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 581–612.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The nation’s report card: Science 2009 (Report No. NCES 2011–451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Noble, T., Suarez, C., Rosebery, A., O'Connor, M. C., Warren, B., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2012). “I never thought of it as freezing”: How students answer questions on large-scale science tests and what they know about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 778–803.
Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51–66.
Pellegrino, J. W. (2013). Proficiency in science: Assessment challenges and opportunities. Science, 340(6130), 320–323.
Penuel, W. R., Harris, C. J., & DeBarger, A. H. (2015). Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(6), 45–49.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. O. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 31–61.
Plass, J. L., Milne, C., Homer, B. D., Schwartz, R. N., Hayward, E. O., Jordan, T., et al. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 394–419.
Popov, V., Noroozi, O., Barrett, J. B., Biemans, H. J. A., Teasley, S. D., Slof, B., et al. (2014). Perceptions and experiences of, and outcomes for, university students in culturally diversified dyads in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 186–200.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.
Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61–94.
Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). "The coat traps all your body heat": Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357.
Russell, J. W., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 330–334.
Ryoo, K., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Designing and validating assessments of complex thinking in science. Theory into Practice, 54(3), 238–254.
Ryoo, K., & Bedell, K. (2017). The effects of visualizations on linguistically-diverse students’ understanding of energy and matter in life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1274–1301.
Ryoo, K., Toutkoushian, E., & Bedell, K. (2018). Exploring different types of assessment items to elicit linguistically diverse students’ understanding of energy and matter in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 149–166.
Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.
Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050–1078.
Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (Technical Report No. 2003-1, No. 1). Santa Barbara, CA: The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Schank, P., & Kozma, R. (2002). Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(3), 253–280.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (1998). Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in the Teaching of English, 32(3), 182–211.
Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.
Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Snow, C. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452.
Solano-Flores, G., Wang, C., Kachchaf, R., Soltero-Gonzalez, L., & Nguyen-Le, K. (2014). Developing testing accommodations for English language learners: Illustrations as visual supports for item accessibility. Educational Assessment, 19(4), 267–283.
Song, Y., & Carheden, S. (2014). Dual meaning vocabulary (DMV) words in learning chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 128–141.
Stern, L., Barnea, N., & Shauli, S. (2008). The effect of a computerized simulation on middle school students’ understanding of the kinetic molecular theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 305–315.
Stieff, M. (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1137–1158.
Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 664–687.
Swanson, L. H., Bianchini, J. A., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Engaging in argument and communicating information: A case study of English language learners and their science teacher in an urban high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 31–64.
Taber, K. S., & Garcia-Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 99–142.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262.
Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. E., & Macrander, C. A. (2015). Exploring shifts in middle school learners' modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 396–415.
Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.
This study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF no. 1552114). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Ryoo, K., Bedell, K. & Swearingen, A. Promoting Linguistically Diverse Students’ Short-Term and Long-Term Understanding of Chemical Phenomena Using Visualizations. J Sci Educ Technol 27, 508–522 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9739-z
- English language learners