Exploring the Impact of and Perceptions about Interactive, Self-Explaining Environments in Molecular- Level Animations
Keywords:
Interactive learning environments, Simulations, Visualisations
Abstract
This mixed-method study investigates the effects of interactivity in animations
of a molecular-level process and explores perceptions about
the animated learning tool used. Treatments were based on principles
of cognitive psychology designed to study the main effects of treatment
and spatial ability and their interaction. Results with students (n=189)
showed that science majors scored higher than non-science majors in
retention measures (i.e., structure and function) but not in transfer.
Significant main effects were found for treatment in function questions and spatial ability in structure questions. There was a significant interaction between treatment and spatial ability in structure questions. Additionally, in this study participants believed the key and the motion of ions and molecules were the most helpful parts of the animation. This study shows that students perceive the animations as being supportive of their learning, suggesting that animations do have a role in science classrooms.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
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.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
Chi, M. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 33-49.
Chi, M. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chi, M., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves
understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances
in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge
and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gabel, D. L. (2005). Handbook on Science Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Science Teacher Association. New York: Macmillan.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-704.
Kelly, R. M. (2005). Exploring how animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’
explanations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.
Linn, M. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727-758.
Martin, B. & Tversky, B. (2003). Segmenting ambiguous events. In Proceedings of the Cognitive
Science Society Meetings, (pp. 234-238). Boston.
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377-389.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multi-media learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Retrieved 05.01.2005 from http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/edpsych/external/EDUC_5080/Mayer.pdf.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
Nakhleh, M. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52-55.
Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a
difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-509.
Peters, M., Laeng, B., Lathan, K., Jackson, M., Zaiouna, R., & Richardson, C. (1995). A redrawn
Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotations test: different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain and Cognition. 28(1), 39-58.
Sawrey, B. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical
Education, 67(3), 253-254.
Schar, S. G., & Zimmermann, P. G. (2007). Investigating means to reduce cognitive load from
animations: Applying differentiated measures of knowledge representation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 64-78.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101-120.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tasker R., (2004). Using multimedia to visualize the molecular world: educational theory into
practice. In T. Greenbowe, & M. Cooper (Eds.), A Chemist’s Guide to Effective Teaching (pp. 256-272). New York: Prentice Hall.
Tasker, R., Dalton, R., Sleet, R., Bucat, B., Chia, W. & Corrigan, D. (2002). Description of VisChem:
Visualising chemical structures and reactions at the molecular level to develop a deep understanding of chemistry concepts. Retrieved 20.01.2007 from Learning Designs Web site: http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD9/index.html
Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract
thought (pp. 79-111). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial Reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 209-242). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations: A group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(2), 599–604.
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2003). Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Applied. 9(2), 88-100.
problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774-783.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
Chi, M. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 33-49.
Chi, M. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chi, M., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves
understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances
in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge
and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gabel, D. L. (2005). Handbook on Science Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Science Teacher Association. New York: Macmillan.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-704.
Kelly, R. M. (2005). Exploring how animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’
explanations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.
Linn, M. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727-758.
Martin, B. & Tversky, B. (2003). Segmenting ambiguous events. In Proceedings of the Cognitive
Science Society Meetings, (pp. 234-238). Boston.
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377-389.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multi-media learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Retrieved 05.01.2005 from http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/edpsych/external/EDUC_5080/Mayer.pdf.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
Nakhleh, M. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52-55.
Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a
difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-509.
Peters, M., Laeng, B., Lathan, K., Jackson, M., Zaiouna, R., & Richardson, C. (1995). A redrawn
Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotations test: different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain and Cognition. 28(1), 39-58.
Sawrey, B. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical
Education, 67(3), 253-254.
Schar, S. G., & Zimmermann, P. G. (2007). Investigating means to reduce cognitive load from
animations: Applying differentiated measures of knowledge representation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 64-78.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101-120.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tasker R., (2004). Using multimedia to visualize the molecular world: educational theory into
practice. In T. Greenbowe, & M. Cooper (Eds.), A Chemist’s Guide to Effective Teaching (pp. 256-272). New York: Prentice Hall.
Tasker, R., Dalton, R., Sleet, R., Bucat, B., Chia, W. & Corrigan, D. (2002). Description of VisChem:
Visualising chemical structures and reactions at the molecular level to develop a deep understanding of chemistry concepts. Retrieved 20.01.2007 from Learning Designs Web site: http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD9/index.html
Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract
thought (pp. 79-111). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial Reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 209-242). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations: A group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(2), 599–604.
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2003). Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Applied. 9(2), 88-100.
Published
2011-12-31
How to Cite
Falvo, D. A., Urban, M. J., & Suits, J. P. (2011). Exploring the Impact of and Perceptions about Interactive, Self-Explaining Environments in Molecular- Level Animations. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(4), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.405
Section
FOCUS
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
