Making connections among multiple visual representations: how do sense-making skills and perceptual fluency relate to learning of chemistry knowledge?
To learn content knowledge in science, technology, engineering, and math domains, students need to make connections among visual representations. This article considers two kinds of connection-making skills: (1) sense-making skills that allow students to verbally explain mappings among representations and (2) perceptual fluency in connection making that allows students to fast and effortlessly use perceptual features to make connections among representations. These different connection-making skills are acquired via different types of learning processes. Therefore, they require different types of instructional support: sense-making activities and fluency-building activities. Because separate lines of research have focused either on sense-making skills or on perceptual fluency, we know little about how these connection-making skills interact when students learn domain knowledge. This article describes two experiments that address this question in the context of undergraduate chemistry learning. In Experiment 1, 95 students were randomly assigned to four conditions that varied whether or not students received sense-making activities and fluency-building activities. In Experiment 2, 101 students were randomly assigned to five conditions that varied whether or not and in which sequence students received sense-making and fluency-building activities. Results show advantages for sense-making and fluency-building activities compared to the control condition only for students with high prior chemistry knowledge. These findings provide new insights into potential boundary conditions for the effectiveness of different types of instructional activities that support students in making connections among multiple visual representations.
KeywordsMultiple representations Chemistry Connection making Sense making Perceptual fluency
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, Award 1611782, by the UW—Madison Graduate School and the Wisconsin Center for Education Research. I thank Amanda Evenstone, Joseph Michaelis, Oana Martin, Abigail Dreps, Brady Cleveland, William Keesler, Taryn Gordon, and Theresa Shim for their contributions.
- Baetge, I., & Seufert, T. (2010). Effects of support for coherence formation in computer science education. In Paper presented at the EARLI SIG 6/7, Ulm.Google Scholar
- Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E., Bursten, B. E., Murphy, C. J., & Woodward, P. M. (2011). Chemistry - the central science (12th ed.). Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Chase, C. C., Shemwell, J. T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2010). Explaining across contrasting cases for deep understanding in science: An example using interactive simulations. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 153–160). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Cramer, K. (2001). Using models to build an understanding of functions. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(5), 310–318.Google Scholar
- Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Five steps from novice to expert. In Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer (pp. 16–51). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Fahle, M., & Poggio, T. (2002). Perceptual learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Goldstone, R. (1997). Perceptual learning. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
- Kaput, J. (1987). Towards a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representations in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 159–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Kellman, P. J., & Massey, C. M. (2013). Perceptual learning, cognition, and expertise. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 558, pp. 117–165). New York: Elsevier Academic.Google Scholar
- Loudon, M. (2009). Organic chemistry (5th ed.). Roberts and Company Publishers.Google Scholar
- Massey, C. M., Kellman, P. J., Roth, Z., & Burke, T. (2011). Perceptual learning and adaptive learning technology—Developing new approaches to mathematics learning in the classroom. In N. L. Stein & S. W. Raudenbush (Eds.), Developmental cognitive science goes to school (pp. 235–249). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Moore, J. W., & Stanitski, C. L. (2015). Chemistry: The molecular science (5th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
- NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
- NCTM. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
- NRC. (2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Özgün-Koca, S. A. (2008). Ninth grade students studying the movement of fish to learn about linear relationships: The use of video-based analysis software in mathematics classrooms. The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 15–25.Google Scholar
- Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2013). Interleaved practice in multi-dimensional learning tasks: Which dimension should weinterleave? Learning and Instruction, 23, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., Rummel, N., & Pardos, Z. (2014). How should intelligent tutoring systems sequence multiple graphical representations of fractions? A multi-methods study. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(2), 125–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-013-0011-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Richman, H. B., Gobet, F., Staszewski, J. J., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Perceptual and memory processes in the acquisition of expert performance: The EPAM model. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence? The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 167–187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Shanks, D. (2005). Implicit learning. In K. Lamberts & R. Goldstone (Eds.), Handbook of cognition (pp. 202–220). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C.-Y. (2013). Conclusion: Contributions of multiple representations to biological education. In Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 349–367). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Urban-Woldron, J. (2009). Interactive simulations for the effective learning of physics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(2), 163–176.Google Scholar
- van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wertsch, J. V., & Kazak, S. (2011). Saying more than you know in instructional settings. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 153–166). New York: Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4419-7582-9_9.
- Wibraham, A. C. (2005). Chemistry. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Wise, J. A., Kubose, T., Chang, N., Russell, A., & Kellman, P. J. (2000). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics and science instruction. In P. Hoffman & D. Lemke (Eds.), Teaching and learning in a network world (pp. 169–176). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar