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.
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.
Statistical outliers were excluded because individual outliers can skew the results of ANCOVAs, which are sensitive to extreme cases. Therefore, effect estimates are more reliable if outliers are excluded. However, in the present case, the exclusion of outliers did not change which effects were significant.
Acevedo Nistal, A., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2013). Students’ reported justifications for their representational choices in linear function problems: An interview study. Educational Studies, 39(1), 104–117. 10.1080/03055698.2012.674636.
Acevedo Nistal, A., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2015). Improving students’ representational flexibility in linear-function problems: An intervention. Educational Psychology, 34(6), 763–786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785064.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.
Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 25–61. 10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_2.
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49. 10.1002/tea.20265.
Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179. 10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00061-7.
Anderson, T. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2008). What can we do about ‘parker’? A case study of a good student who didn't ‘get’organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1039/B806223B.
Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774–783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.524.
Ayres, P. (2015). State-of-the-art research into multimedia learning: A commentary on Mayer’s handbook of multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 631–636.
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.
Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 70–87. 10.1037/a0013247.
Bodemer, D., & Faust, U. (2006). External and mental referencing of multiple representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 27–42. 10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.005.
Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Bruchmüller, K., & Häcker, S. (2005). Supporting learning with interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33(1), 73–95. 10.1007/s11251-004-7685-z.
Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 325–341. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.006.
Bowen, C. W. (1990). Representational systems used by graduate students while problem solving in organic synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), 351–370.
Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E., Bursten, B. E., Murphy, C. J., & Woodward, P. M. (2011). Chemistry - the central science (12th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Charalambous, C. Y., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2007). Drawing on a theoretical model to study students’ understandings of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(3), 293–316. 10.1007/s10649-006-9036-2.
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.
Cheng, P. (1999). Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computers and Education, 33, 109–130.
Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182. 10.1016/0364-0213(89)90002-5.
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477. 10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovitch, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152. 10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cramer, K. (2001). Using models to build an understanding of functions. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(5), 310–318.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398. 10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00051-7.
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.
Eilam, B. (2013). Possible constraints of visualization in biology: Challenges in learning with multiplerepresentations. In D. F. Treagust & C.-Y. Tsui (Eds.), Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 55–73). Dordrecht: Springer.
Fahle, M., & Poggio, T. (2002). Perceptual learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Frensch, R., & Rünger, D. (2003). Implicit learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(1), 13–18. 10.1111/1467-8721.01213.
Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Chi, M. T. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 47–61. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.002.
Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E., & Säljö, R. (2011). Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: A meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 523–552. 10.1007/s10648-011-9174-7.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.45.
Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Prentice Hall.
Gibson, E. J. (2000). Perceptual learning in development: Some basic concepts. Ecological Psychology, 12(4), 295–302. 10.1207/S15326969ECO1204_04.
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and inquiry in science education. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. B. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (Vol. 3, pp. 3–24). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Towards a coherent model for macro, submicro and symbolic representations in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 333–350). Dordrecht: Springer.
Goldstone, R. (1997). Perceptual learning. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65(2), 231–262. 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00047-4.
Gutwill, J. P., Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1999). Making their own connections: Students’ understanding of multiple models in basic electricity. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 249–282. 10.1207/S1532690XCI1703_2.
Hinze, S. R., Rapp, D. N., Williamson, V. M., Shultz, M. J., Deslongchamps, G., & Williamson, K. C. (2013). Beyond ball-and-stick: Students’ processing of novel STEM visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 26, 12–21. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.12.002.
Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1246–1252.
Jones, L. L., Jordan, K. D., & Stillings, N. A. (2005). Molecular visualization in chemistry education: The role of multidisciplinary collaboration. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(3), 136–149. 10.1039/B5RP90005K.
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.
Kellman, P. J., & Garrigan, P. B. (2009). Perceptual learning and human expertise. Physics of Life Reviews, 6(2), 53–84. 10.1016/j.plrev.2008.12.001.
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.
Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., Roth, Z., Burke, T., Zucker, J., Saw, A., et al. (2008). Perceptual learning and the technology of expertise: Studies in fraction learning and algebra. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16(2), 356–405. 10.1075/pc.16.2.07kel.
Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., & Son, J. Y. (2009). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics: Enhancing students’ pattern recognition, structure extraction, and fluency. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01053.x.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
Koedinger, K. R., Booth, J. L., & Klahr, D. (2013). Instructional complexity and the science to constrain it. Science Education, 342(6161), 935–937. 10.1126/science.1238056.
Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 757–798. 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x.
Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143. 10.1207/s15327809jls0902_1.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005a). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005b). Multimedia learning of chemistry. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 409–428). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(1), 65–100. 10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x.
Loudon, M. (2009). Organic chemistry (5th ed.). Roberts and Company Publishers.
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.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, J. W., & Stanitski, C. L. (2015). Chemistry: The molecular science (5th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
NCTM. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Noss, R. R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 203–233. 10.1023/A:1002943821419.
NRC. (2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
O’Keefe, P. A., Letourneau, S. M., Homer, B. D., Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2014). Learning from multiple representations: An examination of fixation patterns in a science simulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 234–242.
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.
Pape, S. J., & Tchoshanov, M. A. (2001). The role of representation (s) in developing mathematical understanding. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 118–127. 10.1207/s15430421tip4002_6.
Rau, M. A. (2015). Enhancing undergraduate chemistry learning by helping students make connections among multiple graphical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 654–669. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00065C.
Rau, M. A. (2016a). Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9365-3.
Rau, M. A. (2016b). A framework for discipline-specific grounding of educational technologies with multiple visual representations. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2623303.
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.
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.
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2015). Successful learning with multiple graphical representations and self-explanation prompts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037211.
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2016). Supporting students in making sense of connections and in becoming perceptually fluentin making connections among multiple graphical representations. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000145.
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2017). Making connections between multiple graphical representations of fractions: Conceptualunderstanding facilitates perceptual fluency, but not vice versa. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9403-7.
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.
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8.
Schooler, J. W., Fiore, S., & Brandimonte, M. A. (1997). At a loss from words: Verbal overshadowing of perceptual memories. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 37, 291–340. 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60505-8.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227–237. 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00022-1.
Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2006). Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 321–331. 10.1002/acp.1248.
Shanks, D. (2005). Implicit learning. In K. Lamberts & R. Goldstone (Eds.), Handbook of cognition (pp. 202–220). London: Sage.
Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 191–203. 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00020-8.
Stieff, M. (2005). Connected chemistry—A novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(3), 489–493. 10.1021/ed082p489.
Stieff, M. (2007). Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 219–234. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.012.
Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Deslongchamps, G. (2011). Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 123–145. 10.1080/07370008.2010.507318.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboër, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
Taber, K. S. (2014). The significance of implicit knowledge for learning and teaching chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 447–461.
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.
Urban-Woldron, J. (2009). Interactive simulations for the effective learning of physics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(2), 163–176.
Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., et al. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. 10.1037/a0028446.
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.
van Merrienboër, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–64.
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. 10.1080/00461520.2011.611369.
Vreman-de Olde, C., & De Jong, T. (2007). Scaffolding learners in designing investigation assignments for a computer simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00160.x.
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.
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.
Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465–492. 10.1002/sce.10126.
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.
Appendix: Sample items from the chemistry knowledge test
Appendix: Sample items from the chemistry knowledge test
About this article
Cite this article
Rau, M.A. Making connections among multiple visual representations: how do sense-making skills and perceptual fluency relate to learning of chemistry knowledge?. Instr Sci 46, 209–243 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9431-3
- Multiple representations
- Connection making
- Sense making
- Perceptual fluency