Abstract
This chapter examines the role that representations and visualizations can play in the chemical curriculum. Two types of curricular goals are examined: students’ acquisition of important chemical concepts and principles and students’ participation in the investigative practices of chemistry—“students becoming chemists.” Literature in learning theory and research support these two goals and this literature is reviewed. The first goal relates to cognitive theory and the way that representations and visualizations can support student understanding of concepts related to molecular entities and processes that are not otherwise available for direct perception. The second goal relates to situative theory and the role that representations and visualizations play in development of representational competence and the social and physical processes of collaboratively constructing an understanding of chemical processes in the laboratory. We analyze research on computer-based molecular modeling, simulations, and animations from these two perspectives and make recommendations for instruction and future research.
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
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993, Benchmarks for science literacy, Oxford University Press, New York.
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001, Atlas of science literacy, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.
Amman, K., and Knorr Cetina, K., 1990, The fixation of (visual) evidence, in: Representation in scientific practice, M. Lynch, and S. Woolgar, eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 85–122.
Allendoerfer, R., 2002, KinSimXP, a chemical kinetics simulation, Journal of Chemical Education, 79(5): 638–639.
Anderson, W., 1984, Between the library and the laboratory: The language of chemistry in eigthteenth-century France, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Baddeley, A., 1999, Human Memory, Allyn & Bacon, Needham, MA.
Chi, M., Feltovich, P., and Glaser, R., 1981, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cognitive Science, 5: 121–152.
Cody, J., and Wiser, D., 2003, Laboratory sequence in computational methods for introductory chemistry, Journal of Chemical Education, 80(7): 793–795.
Dabrowiak, J., Hatala, P., and McPike, J., 2000, A molecular modeling program for teaching structural biochemistry, Journal of Chemical Education, 77(3): 397–400.
diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., and Kolpakowski, T., 1991, Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(2): 117–160.
Dori, Y., and Barak, M., 2001, Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding, Educational Technology & Society, 4(1): 61–74.
Dori, Y., Barak, M., and Adir, N., 2003, A web-based chemistry course as a means to foster freshmen learning, Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9): 1089–1092.
Dunbar, K., 1997, How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories, in: Thenature of insight, R. Sternberg and J. Davidson, eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 365–396.
Flemming, S., Hart, G., and Savage, P., 2000, Molecular orbital animations for organic chemistry, Journal of Chemical Education, 77(6): 790–793.
Francoeur, E., 1997, The forgotten tool: The use and development of molecular models, Social Studies of Science, 27: 7–40.
Francoeur, E., 2002, Cyrus Levinthal, the Kluge, and the origins of interactive molecular graphics, Endeavour, 26(4): 127–131.
Gable, D., 1998, The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching, in: International handbook of science education, B. Fraser, and K. Tobin, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 233–248.
Glaser, R., and Chi, M., 1988, Overview, in: The nature of expertise, M. Chi, R. Glaser, and M. Farr, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp.xv–xxviii.
Gilbert, J., and Boulter, C., 1998, Learning science through models and modeling, in: International Handbook of Science Education, B. Fraser, and K. Tobin, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 53–66.
Goodwin, C., 1995, Seeing in depth, Social Studies of Science, 25: 237–274.
Greeno, J., 1998, The situativity of knowing, learning, and research, American Psychologist, 53(1): 5–26.
Hessley, R., 2000, Computational investigations for undergraduate organic chemistry: predicting the mechanism of the Ritter reaction, Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2): 202.
Hoffman, R., and Laszlo, P., 1991, Representation in Chemistry, Angewandte Chemie, 30(1): 1–16.
Holmes, J., and Gettys, N., 2003, General chemistry collection, 7th Edition abstract of special issue 16, 7th Edition, a CD-ROM for students, Journal of Chemical Education, 80(6): 709–710.
Jones, M., 2001, Molecular modeling in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum, Journal of Chemical Education, 78(7): 867–868.
Johnstone, A., 1997, Chemistry teaching — science or alchemy?, Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3): 262–268.
Kantardjieff, K., Hardinger, S., and Van Willis, W., 1999, Introducing computers early in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum, Journal of Chemical Education, 76(5): 694–697.
Kozma, R., 2000a, Representation and language: The case for representational competence in the chemistry curriculum. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kozma, R., 2000b, Students collaborating with computer models and physical experiments, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1999, J. Roschelle, and C. Hoadley, eds., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Kozma, R., 2000c, The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry, in: Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning, M. Jacobson, and R. Kozma, eds., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 11–45.
Kozma, R., 2003, Material and social affordances of multiple representations for science understanding, Learning and Instruction, 13(2): 205–226.
Kozma, R, Chin, E., Russell, J., and 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.
Kozma, R., and Russell, J., 1997, Multimedia and Understanding: Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9): 949–968.
Krajcik, J. S., 1991, Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts, in: The psychology of learning science, S. Glynn, R. Yeany, and B. Britton, eds., Erlbaun, Hillsdale, NJ, pp.117–147.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Bass, K., Fredricks, J., and Soloway, E., 1998, Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4): 313–351.
Larkin, J., 1983, The role of problem representation in physics, in Mental models, D. Gentner, and A. Stevens, eds., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 75–98.
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., and Simon, H., 1980, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science, 208: 1335–1342.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E., 1991, Situated learning, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Lemke, J., 1990, Talking science: Language, learning, and values, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Martin, N., 1998, Integration of computational chemistry into the chemistry curriculum, Journal of Chemical Education, 75(2), 241–243.
Matta, C., and Gillespie, R., 2002, Understanding and interpreting molecular electron density distributions, Journal of Chemical Education, 79(9): 1141–1152.
Mayer, R., 2001, Multimedia Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Mayer, R., 2002, Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89: 55–71.
Mayer, R., 2003, The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media, Learning and Instruction, 13(2): 125–139.
Michalchik, V., Rosenquist, A., Kozma, R., Schank, P., and Coppola, B., 2004, Representational resources for constructing shared understandings in the high school chemistry classroom [technical report], SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
Montgomery, C., 2001, Integrating molecular modeling into the inorganic chemistry laboratory, Journal of Chemical Education, 78(6): 840–844.
Nakhleh, M. B., 1992, Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions, Journal of Chemical Education, 69: 191–196.
National Research Council, 1996a, The National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council, 1996b, From analysis to action: Undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Science Foundation, 1996, Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
O’Neill, D., and Polman, J., 2004, Why educate “little scientists?”: Examining the potential of practicebased scientific literacy, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3): 234–266.
Paiva, J, Gil, V., and Correia, C., 2002, LeChat: Simulation in chemical equilibrium, Journal of Chemical Education, 79(5): 640.
Paivio, A., 1986, Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, Oxford University Press, New York.
Papadopoulos, N. and Limniou, 2003, pH Titration Simulator, Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9): 709–710.
Paselk, R., and Zoellner, R., 2002, Molecular modeling and computational chemistry at Humboldt State University, Journal of Chemical Education, 79(10): 1192–1194.
Piaget, J., 1972, The psychology of the child, Basic Books, New York.
Robinson, W., 2000, A view of the science education research literature: Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations, Journal of Chemical Education, 77(1): 17–18.
Robinson, W., 2004, Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction, Journal of Chemical Education, 81(1): 10–13.
Roth, W-M., and Bowen, G., 1999, Complexities of graphical representations during lectures: A phenomenological approach, Learning and Instruction, 9: 235–255.
Roth, W-M., and McGinn, M., 1998, Inscriptions: a social practice approach to representations, Review of Educational Research, 68: 35–59.
Russell, J., and Kozma, R., 1994, 4M:Chem — multimedia and mental models in chemistry, Journal of Chemical Education, 71(8) 669–670.
Sanger, M., and Greenbowe, T., 2000, Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies, International Journal of Science Education, 22(5): 521–537.
Sanger, M., Phelps, A., and Fienhold, J., 2000, Using a computer animation to improve students’ conceptual understanding of a can-crushing demonstration, Journal of Chemical Education, 77(11): 517–1520.
Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., 2000, Relation of Student Characteristics to Learning of Basic Biochemistry Concepts from a Multimedia Goal-Based Scenario, PhD dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.
Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., Jones. L., and Persichitte, K., 2001, Differential effects of a multimedia goal-based scenario to teach introductory biochemistry — who benefits most?, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4): 305–317.
Schank, P. and Kozma, R., 2002, Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge-building environment, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(3): 253–279.
Schank, R., Fano, A., Bell, B., and Jona, M., 1993, The design of goal-based scenarios, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 305–345.
Shusterman, G., and Shusterman, A., 1997, Teaching chemistry with electron density models, Journal of Chemical Education, 74(7): 771–776.
Williamson, V., 1992, The effects of computer animation emphasizing the particulate nature of matter on the understandings and misconceptions of college general chemistry student, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma.
Williamson, V., and Abraham, M., 1995, The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5): 521–534.
Woolgar, S., 1990, Time and documents in researcher interaction: Some ways of making out what is happening in experimental science, in: Representation in scientific practice, M. Lynch, and S. Woolgar, eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 123–152.
Yang, E., Greenbowe, T., and Andre, T., 2004, The effective use of interactive software program to reduce students’ misconceptions about batteries, Journal of Chemical Education, 81(4): 587–595.
Vogel, G. (1996). Science education: Global review faults U.S. curricula, Science, 274, 335.
Vygotsky, L., 1986, Thought and language, MIT Press, Boston.
Vygotsky, L., and Vygotsky, S., 1980. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Zare, R., 2002, Visualizing Chemistry, Journal of Chemical Education, 79(11): 1290–1291.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kozma, R., Russell, J. (2005). Students Becoming Chemists: Developing Representationl Competence. In: Gilbert, J.K. (eds) Visualization in Science Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3612-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3613-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)