Abstract
When people are learning complicated scientific concepts, interacting with multiple forms of representation such as diagrams, graphs and equations can bring unique benefits. Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence to show that learners often fail to exploit these advantages, and in the worse cases inappropriate combinations of representations can completely inhibit learning. In other words, multiple representations are powerful tools but like all powerful tools they need careful handling if learners are to use them successfully. In this chapter, I will review the evidence that suggests that multiple representations serve a number of important roles in science education. I will also consider why the research on the effectiveness of multiple representations shows that all too often they do not achieve their desired educational goals and I consider what can be done to overcome these problems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ainsworth, S., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 241–255.
Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33 (2–3), 131–152.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Ainsworth, S. E., 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.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation in physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.
Cox, R. (1996). Analytical reasoning with multiple external representations. University of Edinburgh Scotland: University of Edinburgh Press.
Dienes, Z. (1973). The six stages in the process of learning mathematics. Slough: NFER-Nelson.
Elby, A. (2000). What students’ learning of representations tells us about constructivism. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 481–502.
Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124–158.
Grossen, B., & Carnine, D. (1990). Diagramming a Logic Strategy –Effects on Difficult Problem Types and Transfer. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(3), 168–182.
Heuer, D. (2002). PAKMA 2002 – Interactive simulation, measurement, reproduction, modelling and analysis in physics; CD-ROM. Hannover: Schroedel Verlag.
Kaput, J. J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 167–194). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
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. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10000 words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–99.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1–64.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ploetzner, R. (1995). The construction and coordination of complementary problem representations in physics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2/3), 203–238.
Ploetzner, R., Fehse, E., Kneser, C., & Spada, H. (1999). Learning to relate qualitative and quantitative problem representations in a model-based setting for collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 177–214.
Ploetzner, R., Lippitsch, S., Galmbacher, M., & Heuer, D. (2006). Students’ Difficulties in Learning Physics from Dynamic and Interactive Visualizations. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.),Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol 2) . (Vol. 550–556). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Preece, J. (1993). Graphs are not straightforward. In T. R. G. Green, S. J. Payne, & G. C. van der Veer (Eds.), The psychology of computer use (pp. 41–56). London: Academic Press.
Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 87–98.
Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 159–194.
Russell, J., Kozma, R., Becker, D., & Susskind, T. (2000). SMV: Chem; Synchronized Multiple Visualizations in Chemistry. New York: John Wiley.
Scanlon, E. (1998). How beginning students use graphs of motion. In M. W. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9–40). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary – Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101–120.
Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227–237.
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J.-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for nonlinear and multi-dimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multi-media: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Stieff, M. (2005). Connected chemistry – A novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(3), 489–493.
Tabachneck, H. J. M., Leonardo, A. M., & Simon, H. A. (1994). How does an expert use a graph ? A model of visual & verbal inferencing in economics. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J. M., & Simon, H. A. (1998). Alternative representations of instructional material. In D. Peterson (Ed.), Forms of representation (pp. 28–46). Exeter: Intellect Books.
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.
van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (2003). SIMQUEST: Authoring educational simulations. In T. Murray, S. Blessing, & S. E. Ainsworth (Eds.), Tools for advanced technology learning environments (pp. 1–32). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Van Labeke, N., & Ainsworth, S. (2001). Applying the DeFT framework to the design of multi-representational instructional simulations. In J. D. Moore, C. L. Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on AI in education (pp. 314–321). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325.
Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 42–57.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ainsworth, S. (2008). The Educational Value of Multiple-representations when Learning Complex Scientific Concepts. In: Gilbert, J.K., Reiner, M., Nakhleh, M. (eds) Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5266-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5267-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)