Teaching and Learning with Three-dimensional Representations

  • Mike Stieff
  • Robert C BatemanJr.
  • David H Uttal
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 1)


Computer-based visualizations play a profoundly important role in chemistry instruction. In this chapter, we review the role of visualization tools and possible ways in which they may influence thinking about chemistry. There are now several visualization systems available that allow students to manipulate important variables in obtain a solution to a scientific problem. We discuss the fundamental differences between these tools, and we emphasize the use of each within the context of constructivist curricula and pedagogies. We also consider the impact such tools may have on visuo-spatial thinking. We suggest that although visuo-spatial ability may be important in visualization use, its role has at times been overemphasized. We argue for a more nuanced, richer understanding of the many ways in which visuo-spatial reasoning is used in solving chemistry problems. This discussion leads to a set of design principles for the use of visualization tools in teaching chemistry. Finally, we present our work on the Kinemage Authorship Project, a program designed to assist students in understanding spatial structures in complex, biochemical molecules. The Kinemage Authorship Project allows students to construct their own molecular visualizations, and we discuss how this may lead to greater understanding of the spatial properties of molecules. This constructivist program embodies many of the design principles that we present earlier in the chapter.


Mental Rotation Visualization Tool Isualization Tool Problem Solvin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bateman, R. C., Jr., Booth, D., Sirochman, R., Richardson, J. S., & Richardson, D. C. (2002). Teaching and assessing three-dimensional molecular literacy in undergraduate biochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(5), 551–552.Google Scholar
  2. Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The Chemical Educator, 2(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodner, G. M., & McMillen, T. L. B. (1987). Cognitive restructuring as an early stage in problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 727–737.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  5. Brownlow, S., & Miderski, C. A. (2001). How gender and college chemistry experience influence mental rotation ability. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  6. Butler, D., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 25(2), 22–28.Google Scholar
  7. Carter, C. S., LaRussa, M. A., & Bodner, G. M. (1987). A study of two measures of spatial ability as predictors of success in different levels of general chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(7), 645–657.Google Scholar
  8. Centola, D., Wilensky, U., & McKenzie, E. (2000). A hands-on modeling approach to evolution: Learning about the evolution of cooperation and altruism through multi-agent modeling-The EACH Project. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 166–173). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, S. L., & Gotch, A. J. (1998). Spatial perception skills of chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(2), 206–209.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. D. Corte, R. Glaser & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 347–361).Google Scholar
  11. Copolo, C. F., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crouch, R. D., Holden, M. S., & Samet, C. (1996). CAChe molecular modeling: A visualization tool early in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(10), 916–918.Google Scholar
  13. den Heyer, K., & Barrett, B. (1971). Selective loss of visual and verbal information in STM by means of visual and verbal interpolated tasks. Psychometric Science, 25(2), 100–102.Google Scholar
  14. Duhaney, D. C. (2001). Teacher education: preparing teachers to integrate technology. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(1), 23–30.Google Scholar
  15. Ealy, J. B. (1999). A student evaluation of molecular modeling in first year college chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.Google Scholar
  17. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3/4), 391–450.Google Scholar
  18. Finke, R., & Pinker, S. (1982). Spontaneous imagery scanning in mental extrapolation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 8(2), 142–147.Google Scholar
  19. Habraken, C. L. (1996). Perceptions of chemistry: Why is the common perception of chemistry, the most visual of sciences, so distorted? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(3), 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static diagrams of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 18(5), 1084–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horowitz, P. (2002). Simulations and visualization: Issues for REC. Retrieved May 21, 2004, from Scholar
  22. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.Google Scholar
  23. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, T. P. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  24. Kali, Y. (2003). A virtual journey within the rock-cycle: A software kit for the development of systems-thinking in the context of the Earth’s crust. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(2), 165–170.Google Scholar
  25. Kali, Y., & Orion, N. (1997). Software for assisting high-school students in the spatial perception of geological structures. Journal of Geoscience Education, 45, 10–21.Google Scholar
  26. Keating, T., Barnett, M., Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2002). Developing conceptual understanding of scientific concepts through building three-dimensional computational models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(3), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translation of representation of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883–903.Google Scholar
  28. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kozma, R., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krueger, K., Hansen, L., & Smaldino, S. E. (2000). Preservice teacher technology competencies. TechTrends, 44(2), 47–50.Google Scholar
  32. Madigan, S. (1983). Picture memory. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Imagery, memory, and cognition: Essays in honour of Allan Paivio (pp. 65–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Markman, A. B. (1999). Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Noh, T., & Scharmann, L. C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students’ conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  37. Perkins, D. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31(5), 18–23.Google Scholar
  38. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  39. Pickering, S. (2001). The development of visuo-spatial working memory. Memory, 9(4/5/6), 423–432.Google Scholar
  40. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981). The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit knowledge. Psychological Review, 88, 16–45.Google Scholar
  41. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, T. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Richardson, D. C., & Richardson, J. S. (1992). The kinemage: a tool for scientific communication. Protein Science, 1, 3–9.Google Scholar
  43. Richardson, D. C., & Richardson, J. S. (1994). Kinemages-simple macromolecular graphics for interactive teaching and publication. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 19, 135–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richardson, D. C., & Richardson, J. S. (2002). Teaching molecular 3-D literacy. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 30(1), 21–26.Google Scholar
  45. Roberts, J. E., & Bell, M. A. (2000). Sex differences on a computerized mental rotation task disappear with computer familiarization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 1027–1034.Google Scholar
  46. Scali, R. M., Brownlow, S., & Hicks, J. L. (2000). Gender differences in spatial task performance as a function of speed or accuracy orientation. Sex Roles, 43(5–6), 359–376.Google Scholar
  47. Schwartz, D. L., & Black, J. (1996). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: Induction and fallback. Cognitive Science, 20(4), 457–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shepard, R. N., & Chipman, S. (1970). Second-order isomorphism of internal representations: Shapes of states. Cognitive Psychology, 1(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.Google Scholar
  50. Sherin, B. L., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through the collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environment, 3(2), 91–118.Google Scholar
  51. Stieff, M. (2004). A localized model of spatial cognition in chemistry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  52. Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected Chemistry-Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Voith, M. (2003). Make your own 3-D Models. Chemical & Engineering News, 81(49), 36–38.Google Scholar
  54. White, B., Kim, S., Sherman, K., & Weber, N. (2002). Evaluation of molecular visualization software for teaching protein structure. Biomchemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 30(2), 130–136.Google Scholar
  55. Wilensky, U. (1999). GasLab-an extensible modeling toolkit for connecting micro-and macro-proerties of gases. In N. Roberts, W. Feurzig & B. Hunter (Eds.), Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education (pp. 151–178). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Wilensky, U. (2001). Modeling nature’s emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. Paper presented at the EuroLogo 2001, Linz, Austria.Google Scholar
  57. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wu, H.-k., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting conceptual understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Stieff
    • 1
  • Robert C BatemanJr.
    • 2
  • David H Uttal
    • 3
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaDavis
  2. 2.The University of Southern MississippiUSA
  3. 3.Northwestern UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations