Abstract
This article describes an investigation into teaching and learning with student-generated animations combined with a representational pedagogy. In particular, it reports on interactive discussions that were stimulated by the students’ own animations as well as their critiques of experts’ animations. Animations representing views of states of matter provided a vehicle by which to investigate learning in a series of lessons. The study was implemented with Year 11 high school students. After students constructed, presented and discussed their animations, they watched and critiqued experts’ animations. They were then interviewed about the teaching–learning process. Most students (91%) spoke positively about follow-up discussion classes, saying that their previous conceptions and understanding of states of matter had improved. They explained that they had identified some alternative conceptions, which they had held regarding states of matter and explained how their conceptions had changed. They reported that the teaching/learning process had helped them to develop a deeper understanding of the changing states of matter.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akaygun, S. (2016). Is the oxygen atom static or dynamic? The effect of generating animations on students’ mental models of atomic structure. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 788–807.
Akaygun, S., & Jones, L. L. (2013a). Research-based design and development of a simulation of liquid–vapor equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 324–344.
Akaygun, S., & Jones, L. L. (2013b). Dynamic visualizations: tools for understanding particulate nature of matter. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education (pp. 281–300). Dordrecht: Springer.
Akaygun, S., & Jones, L. L. (2014). Words or pictures: a comparison of written and pictorial explanations of physical and chemical equilibria. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 783–807.
Aubusson, P. & Harrison, A.G. (2006). Metaphor and analogy. In P. Aubusson, A.G. Harrison & S. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 1-9). Springer: Dordrecht.
Aubusson, P., Treagust, D F. & Harrison A. (2009). Learning and teaching science with analogies and metaphors. In S. Ritchie (Ed.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in Australasia vol. 2, (pp. 199-216), Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Barlex, D., & Carré, C. (1985). Identifying our beliefs about learning. In Visual communication in science (pp. 1–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64–66.
Chang, H.-Y., & Quintana, C. (2006). Student-generated animations: supporting middle school students’ visualization, interpretation and reasoning of chemical phenomena. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 71-77). Retrieved from https://www.cs.uic.edu/~i523/chang.pdf.
Chang, H., 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(19), 73–94.
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active–constructive–interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 73–105.
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241–1257.
Coll, R. K. (2006). The role of models, mental models and analogies in chemistry teaching. In P. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 65–77). Dordrecht: Springer.
Cosgrove, M. (1995). A case study of science-in-the-making as students generate an analogy for electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 295–310.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Danish, J. A., & Enyedy, N. (2007). Negotiated representational mediators: how young children decide what to include in their science representations. Science Education, 91(1), 1–35.
Davis R. C., Colwell B., & Landay J. A. (2008). K-Sketch: a “kinetic” sketch pad for novice animators. Paper presented at 26th computer human interactions (CHI) conference, April 5–10, Florence, Italy. Retrieved from http://dub.washington.edu:2007/pubs/chi2008/chi1094-davis.pdf.
di Sessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. (2000). Meta-representation: an introduction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.
Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2010). External visual representations in science learning: the case of relations among system components. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2335–2366.
Fogwill, S. (2006). Student generated analogies in high school physics. Paper presented at Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference, Canberra, 5–8 July.
Fogwill, S. (2010). Student co-generated analogies and their influence on the development of science understanding (doctoral dissertation). Sydney: University of Technology Sydney. Retrieved from https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/2100/1244.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.
Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–367.
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(3), 352–381.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Conceptual change using multiple interpretive perspectives: two case studies in secondary school chemistry. Instructional Science, 29(1), 45–85.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies. In P. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 11–24). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hoban, G., & Nielsen, W. (2010). The 5 Rs: a new teaching approach to encourage Slowmations (student-generated animations) of science concepts. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 56(3), 33–38.
Hoban, G. F., & Nielsen, W. S. (2013). Learning science through creating a “Slowmation”: a case study of preservice primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 35(1), 119–146.
Hoban, G., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Creating a narrated stop-motion animation to explain science: the affordances of “Slowmation” for generating discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 42, 68–78.
Hoban, G., McDonald, D., Ferry, B., & Hoban, S. (2009). Simplifying animation to encourage preservice teachers’ science learning and teaching using “Slowmation”. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2009 (pp. 2838–2847). Cheapasake: Association for the Advancement of computing in education (AACE).
Hoban, G., Loughran, J., & Nielsen, W. (2011). Slowmation: preservice elementary teachers representing science knowledge through creating multimodal digital animations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 985–1009.
Hoffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738.
Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5–28.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: technologies for meaning making. In Learning with Technology: a constructivist perspective (pp. 1–18). Upper Saddle River: Merrill.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
K-Sketch [Computer software]. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.k-sketch.org/.
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 1–11.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: evidence-based inquiry. Boston: Pearson.
Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E. H. (2003). Using questioning to assess and foster student thinking. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 61–73). Arlington: NSTA Press.
Powell, K., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: developing tools for any effective classroom. Journal of Education, 130(2), 241–250.
Rich, R. Z., & Blake, S. (1994). Using pictures to assist in comprehension and recall. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29(5), 271–275.
Richard, A. Y., & Audrey, C. (2004). Introduction: constructivism and social constructivism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 373–388.
Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.
Shemwell, J. T., & Furtak, E. M. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: a study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 222–250.
Stieff, M., Bateman, R. C., & Uttal, D. H. (2005). Teaching and learning with three-dimensional representations. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 93–118). Dordecht: Springer.
Tytler, R., Waldrip, B., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Windows into practice: constructing effective science teaching and learning in a school change initiative. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 171–194.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37, 313–331.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam: Sense.
Udo, M. E., & Etiubon, R. U. (2011). Computer-based science simulations, guided-discovery and students’ performance in chemistry. Modern Applied Science, 5(6), 211–217.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Waldrip, B., & Prain, V. (2013). Teachers’ initial response to a representational focus. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 15–30). Sense: Rotterdam.
Williamson, V. (2008). The particulate nature of matter: an example of how theory-based research can impact the field. In D. Bunce & R. S. Cole (Eds.), Nuts and bolts of chemical education research (pp. 67–78). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
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.
Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Science Teaching, 48, 1177–1198.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The study was conducted according to ethical protocols approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Technology Sydney.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yaseen, Z., Aubusson, P. Exploring Student-Generated Animations, Combined with a Representational Pedagogy, as a Tool for Learning in Chemistry. Res Sci Educ 50, 529–548 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9700-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9700-4