Top

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Published in:

01-02-2014

Supporting Knowledge Integration in Chemistry with a Visualization-Enhanced Inquiry Unit

Authors: Jennifer L. Chiu, Marcia C. Linn

Published in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Issue 1/2014

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This paper describes the design and impact of an inquiry-oriented online curriculum that takes advantage of dynamic molecular visualizations to improve students’ understanding of chemical reactions. The visualization-enhanced unit uses research-based guidelines following the knowledge integration framework to help students develop coherent understanding by connecting and refining existing and new ideas. The inquiry unit supports students to develop connections among molecular, observable, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions. Design-based research included a pilot study, a study comparing the visualization-enhanced inquiry unit to typical instruction, and a course-long comparison study featuring a delayed posttest. Students participating in the visualization-enhanced unit outperformed students receiving typical instruction and further consolidated their understanding on the delayed posttest. Students who used the visualization-enhanced unit formed more connections among concepts than students with typical textbook and lecture-based instruction. Item analysis revealed the types of connections students made when studying the curriculum and suggested how these connections enabled students to consolidate their understanding as they continued in the chemistry course. Results demonstrate that visualization-enhanced inquiry designed for knowledge integration can improve connections between observable and atomic-level phenomena and serve students well as they study subsequent topics in chemistry.

previous article Scientific Investigations of Elementary School Children

next article A Classroom-Based Distributed Workflow Initiative for the Early Involvement of Undergraduate Students in Scientific Research

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Agung S, Schwartz M (2007) Students’ understanding of conservation of matter, stoichiometry, and balancing equations in Indonesia. Int J Sci Educ 29(13):1679–1702CrossRef

Ainsworth S (2006) DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learn Instr 16(3):183–198CrossRef

Ainsworth S, VanLabeke N (2004) Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learn Instr 14:241–255CrossRef

Ainsworth S, Bibby P, Wood D (2002) Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. J Learn Sci 11(1):25–61CrossRef

Ardac D, Akaygun S (2004) Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. J Res Sci Teach 41(4):317–337CrossRef

Ardac D, Akaygun S (2005) Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at molecular level. Int J Sci Educ 27(11):1269–1298CrossRef

Ardac D, Sezen A (2002) Effectiveness of computer-based chemistry instruction in enhancing the learning of content and variable control under guided versus unguided conditions. J Sci Educ Technol 11(1):39–48CrossRef

Ben-Zvi R, Eylon B–S, Silberstein J (1987) Students’ visualization of a chemical reaction. Educ Chem 24(4):117–120

Betrancourt M (2005) The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 287–296CrossRef

Bjork RA (1994) Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In: Metcalfe J, Shimamura A (eds) Metacognition: knowing about knowing. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 185–205

Bodemer D, Ploetzner R, Feuerlein I, Spada H (2004) The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualizations. Learn Instr 14(3):325–341CrossRef

Bodner G (1991) I have found you an argument: the conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. J Chem Educ 68:385–388CrossRef

Boo H–K (1998) Students’ understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. J Res Sci Teach 35(5):569–581CrossRef

Boo H–K, Watson JR (2001) Progression in high school students’ (aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Sci Educ 85(5):568–585CrossRef

Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR (2000) How people learn. National Academy Press, Washington

Brown AL (1992) Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J Learn Sci 2(2):141–178CrossRef

Buckley BC, Gobert JD, Kindfield ACH, Horwitz P, Tinker RF, Gerlits B, Wilensky U, Dede C, Willett J (2004) Model-based teaching and learning with Biologica: what do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? J Sci Educ Technol 13(1):23–41CrossRef

Calik M, Ayas A (2005) A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. J Res Sci Teach 42(6):638–667CrossRef

Chang H–Y, Quintana C (2006) Student-generated animations: Supporting middle-school students’ visualization, interpretation and reasoning of chemical phenomena. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (Bloomington, Indiana, June 27–July 01, 2006). international conference on learning sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp 71–77

Chiu JL, Linn MC (2012) Supporting self-monitoring with dynamic visualizations. In: Dori J, Zohar A (eds) Metacognition and science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 133–164CrossRef

Clark DB (2006) Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: an examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cogn Instr 24(4):467–563CrossRef

Clark DB, Varma K, McElhaney K, Chiu JL (2008) Structure and design rationale within TELS projects to support knowledge integration. In: Robinson D, Schraw G (eds) Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, pp 157–193

Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

Collins A (1992) Toward a design science of education. In: Scanlon E, Shea TO (eds) New directions in educational technology. Springer, New York, pp 15–22CrossRef

Cook M (2006) Visual representations in science education: the influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Sci Educ 90(6):1073–1091CrossRef

de Jong T, van Joolingen WR (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res 68(2):179–201CrossRef

Finkelstein ND, Adams WK, Keller CJ, Kohl PB, Perkisn KK, Podolefsky N et al (2005) when learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys Rev Special Top Phys Educ Res 1:1–8

Gabel D (1999) Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. J Chem Educ 76(4):548–553CrossRef

Grove N, Cooper M, Rush M (2012) Decorating with arrows: towards the development of representational competence in organic chemistry. J Chem Educ 89(7):844–849CrossRef

Haidar A (1997) Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of the conservation of matter and related concepts. J Res Sci Teach 34(2):181–197CrossRef

Hegarty M (2004) Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions. Learn Instr 14(3):343–351CrossRef

Hinton M, Nakhleh M (1999) Students’ microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions. Chem Educ 4:158–167CrossRef

Hoffler T, Leutner D (2007) Instructional animations versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learn Instr 17:722–738CrossRef

Honey MA, Hilton M (eds) (2011) Learning science through computer games and simulations. National Academies Press, Washington

Johnstone AH (1991) Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn 7:75–83CrossRef

Kali Y (2006) Collaborative knowledge building using a design principles database. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 1(2):187–201CrossRef

Kali Y, Linn MC (2008) Designing effective visualizations for elementary school science. Elem Sch J 109(2):181–198CrossRef

Kozma R (2000) The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In: Jacobson M, Kozma R (eds) Innovations in science and mathematics education: advanced designs for technologies of learning. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 314–322

Kozma R (2003) The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learn Instr 13(2):205–226CrossRef

Kozma R, Russell J (2005) Student becoming chemist: developing representational competence. In: Gilbert JK (ed) Visualization in science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 121–146CrossRef

Krajcik J (1991) Developing students’ understandings of chemical concepts. In: Glynn S, Yeany R, Britton B (eds) The psychology of learning science. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 117–147

Levy D (2012) How dynamic visualization technology can support molecular reasoning. J Sci Educ Technol. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9424-6

Levy ST, Wilensky U (2009) Students’ learning with the connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum: navigating the complexities of the particulate world. J Sci Educ Technol 18(3):243–254CrossRef

Linn MC (1995) Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. J Sci Educ Technol 4:103–126CrossRef

Linn MC (2005) WISE design for lifelong learning—pivotal cases. In: Gärdenfors P, Johansson P (eds) Cognition, education and communication technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

Linn MC, Eylon B–S (2006) Science education. In: Alexander PA, Winne PH (eds) Handbook of educational psychology, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Mahwah

Linn MC, Eylon B-S (2011) Science learning and instruction: taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Routledge, New York

Linn MC, Hsi S (2000) Computers, teachers, peers: science learning partners. Erlbaum, Mahwah

Linn MC, Davis EA, Bell P (2004) Internet environments for science education. Erlbaum, Mahwah

Linn MC, Lee H–S, Tinker R, Husic F, Chiu JL (2006) Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science 313:1049–1050CrossRef

Linn MC, Chang H–Y, Chiu JL, Zhang H, McElhaney K (2010) Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In: Benjamin A (ed) Successful remembering and successful forgetting: a Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 239–262

Liu OL, Lee H, Linn MC (2011) Measuring knowledge integration: validation of four-year assessments. J Res Sci Teach 48(9):1079–1107CrossRef

Lowe R (2004) Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learn Instr 14:257–274CrossRef

Mayer RE, Hegarty M, Mayer S, Campbell J (2005) When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instructions. J Exp Psychol Appl 11:256–265CrossRef

McElhaney K, Linn MC (2011) Investigations of a complex, realistic task: intentional, unsystematic and exhaustive experimenters. J Res Sci Teach 48(7):745–770CrossRef

Moreno R, Valdez A (2005) Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: the role of student interactivity and feedback. Educ Tech Res Dev 53(3):35–45CrossRef

Mulford DR, Robinson WR (2002) An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. J Chem Educ 79(6):739–744CrossRef

National Research Council (2011) A framework for K-12 science education. National Academies Press, Washington

Ozmen H, Ayas A (2003) Students’ difficulties in understanding of the conservation of matter in open and closed-system chemical reactions. Chem Educ Res Pract 4(3):279–290CrossRef

Pallant A, Tinker RF (2004) Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. J Sci Educ Technol 13(1):51–66CrossRef

Pedrosa M, Dias H (2000) Chemistry textbook approaches to chemical equilibrium and student alternative conceptions. Chem Educ Res Pract 1(2):227–236CrossRef

Plass JL, Homer BD, Hayward E (2009) Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. J Comput High Educ 21(1):31–61CrossRef

Quintana C, Zhang M, Krajcik J (2005) A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educ Psychol 40:235–244CrossRef

Rieber LP, Tzeng S, Tribble K (2004) Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: finding the right mix. Learn Instr 14:307–323CrossRef

Rosnow RL, Rosenthal R (1996) Computing contrasts, effect sizes, and counternulls on other people’s published data: general procedures for research consumers. Psychol Methods 1:331–340CrossRef

Schank P, Kozma R (2002) Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. J Comput Math Sci Teach 2(3):254–271

Slotta JD, Linn MC (2009) WISE science: web-based inquiry in the classroom. Teachers College Press, New York

Smetana L, Bell R (2012) Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ 34(9):1337–1370CrossRef

Stieff M (2011) Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. J Res Sci Teach 48(10):1137–1158CrossRef

Stieff M, Wilensky U (2003) Connected Chemistry: incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. J Sci Educ Technol 12:285–302CrossRef

Talanquer V (2011) Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. Int J Sci Educ 33(2):179–195CrossRef

The Design-Based Research Collective (2003) Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educ Res 32(1):5–8

Theile R, Treagust D (1995) Analogies in chemistry textbooks. Int J Sci Educ 17(6):783–795CrossRef

Tien L, Teichart M, Rickey D (2007) Effectiveness of a MORE laboratory module in prompting students to revise their molecular-level ideas about solutions. J Chem Educ 84(1):175–181CrossRef

Tversky B, Morrison JB, Betrancourt M (2002) Animation: can it facilitate? Int J Hum Comput Stud 57:247–262CrossRef

Williams M, Debarger A, Montgomery B, Zhou X, Tate E (2012) Exploring middle school students’ conceptions of the relationship between genetic inheritance and cell division. Sci Educ 96(1):78–103CrossRef

Williamson VM, Abraham MR (1995) The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. J Res Sci Teach 32(5):521–534CrossRef

Wu H–K, Shah P (2004) Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Sci Educ 88(3):465–492CrossRef

Wu H–K, Krajcik JS, Soloway E (2001) Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. J Res Sci Teach 38(7):821–842CrossRef

Xie Q, Tinker R (2006) Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. J Chem Educ 83(1):77–83CrossRef

Xie C, Tinker RF, Tinker B, Pallant A, Damelin D, Berenfeld B (2011) Computational experiments for science education. Science 332(6037):1516–1517CrossRef

Yang E, Greenbowe T, Andre T (2004) The effective use of a software program to reduce students’ misconceptions about batteries. J Chem Educ 81(4):587–595CrossRef

Yarroch WL (1985) Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. J Res Sci Teach 22(5):449–459CrossRef

Zhang H, Linn M (2011) Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? J Res Sci Teach 48(10):1177–1198CrossRef

Title: Supporting Knowledge Integration in Chemistry with a Visualization-Enhanced Inquiry Unit
Authors: Jennifer L. Chiu
Marcia C. Linn
Publication date: 01-02-2014
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9449-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

A Meta-analysis Method to Advance Design of Technology-Based Learning Tool: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Research to Understand Learning in Relation to Different Technology Features

A Controlled Evaluation of a High School Biomedical Pipeline Program: Design and Methods

Urban High School Students’ IT/STEM Learning: Findings from a Collaborative Inquiry- and Design-Based Afterschool Program

Closing the Gap Between Attitudes and Perceptions About ICT-Enhanced Learning Among Pre-service STEM Teachers

Measuring Student Attitude and Knowledge in Technology-Rich Biology Classrooms

Evaluating a Contextual-Based Course on Data Analysis for the Physics Laboratory

Premium Partners