Understanding and Enhancing the Use of Multiple External Representations in Chemistry Education

Theories on learning with Multiple External Representations (MER) claim that low prior knowledge learners in science have difficulties using MER, which are seen as necessary to achieve a conceptual understanding. In two experiments, we analyze the mechanisms underlying the learning of chemistry with MER. Our first experiment focuses on how MER can support learning. We found no difference in learning gains of conceptual understanding, regardless of the format (whether MER were provided or not). It is concluded that chemical MER on themself cannot be seen as learning aids. The second experiment compares three types of instructional aids (prompts, prompts with an answer, and note-taking) to determine which types of aids enhance learning with MER. Contrary to the findings of Seufert (Learn Instr 13:227–237, 2003), path-analysis suggests that the lowest prior knowledge group benefits the most from instructional aids such as prompts and note-taking. These aids guide learners’ attention towards one specific representational format (symbols), while other formats (submicroscopic representations) receive less attention.

[1]  Heinz Mandl,et al.  Supporting learning using external representations , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[2]  Tina Seufert.  Supporting Coherence Formation in Learning from Multiple Representations , 2003 .

[3]  S. Ainsworth.  DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning with Multiple Representations. , 2006 .

[4]  W. Schnotz.  Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect , 2010 .

[5]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  What Counts? The Predictive Powers of Subject-Matter Knowledge, Strategic Processing, and Interest in Domain-Specific Performance , 2002 .

[6]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models☆ , 1992 .

[7]  Hans Spada,et al.  Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics : the use of multiple representations in technology based learning environments , 1998 .

[8]  Tina Seufert,et al.  Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation , 2006 .

[9]  S. Ainsworth,et al.  External Representations for Learning , 2009 .

[10]  Russell N. Carney,et al.  Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students' Learning from Text , 2002 .

[11]  A. Renkl,et al.  How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful , 2009 .

[12]  Avi Hofstein,et al.  The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for assessing the development of chemical literacy among high-school students , 2006 .

[13]  Slava Kalyuga.  Expertise Reversal Effect and Its Implications for Learner-Tailored Instruction , 2007 .

[14]  Paul Ginns.  Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects , 2006 .

[15]  Vicente A Talanquer,et al.  Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet” , 2011 .

[16]  Jean-François Rouet,et al.  Understanding Multimedia Documents , 2010 .

[17]  Yehudit Judy Dori,et al.  High-School Chemistry Students' Performance and Gender Differences in a Computerized Molecular Modeling Learning Environment , 1999 .

[18]  Albert Pilot,et al.  Structure–Property Relations Between Macro and Micro Representations: Relevant Meso-levels in Authentic Tasks , 2009 .

[19]  Kirsten R. Butcher.  Learning from Text with Diagrams: Promoting Mental Model Development and Inference Generation. , 2006 .

[20]  R. Kozma,et al.  Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena , 1997 .

[21]  W. Howard Levie,et al.  Effects of text illustrations: A review of research , 1982 .

[22]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitude–treatment–interaction study , 2009 .

[23]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? , 1997 .

[24]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[25]  R. Moreno,et al.  Do Multiple Representations Need Explanations? The Role of Verbal Guidance and Individual Differences in Multimedia Mathematics Learning , 2004 .

[26]  Avi Hofstein,et al.  Chemical Literacy: What Does This Mean to Scientists and School Teachers? , 2006 .

[27]  Guy Ashkenazi,et al.  Connecting Levels of Representation: Emergent versus submergent perspective , 2008 .

[28]  Daniel Bodemer,et al.  External and mental referencing of multiple representations , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[29]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: visualization effects on mental model construction , 2008 .

[30]  Michelle Cook.  Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles , 2006 .

[31]  Diane M. Bunce,et al.  Testing for Conceptual Understanding in General Chemistry1 , 1997 .

[32]  M. Harris,et al.  Effect of Note Taking and Review on Recall. , 1973 .

[33]  Paul Lagassé,et al.  The Columbia encyclopedia , 2000 .

[34]  Jan van der Meij,et al.  Learning with Multiple Representations , 1998 .

[35]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Meta-representation: an introduction , 2000 .

[36]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Correct Interpretation of Chemical Diagrams Requires Transforming from One Level of Representation to Another , 2008 .

[37]  Peter Gerjets,et al.  Learning from multimedia and hypermedia , 2009 .

[38]  M. Rinck,et al.  Multimedia learning: Working memory and the learning of word and picture diagrams , 2006 .

[39]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  Explorations of relationships among learners, tasks, and learning , 2009 .

[40]  Pieter Wouters,et al.  Learner Performance in Multimedia Learning Arrangements: An Analysis Across Instructional Approaches , 2009 .

[41]  Jan van der Meij,et al.  Support for learning with multiple representations designing simulation-based learning environments , 2007 .

[42]  Marcelo Milrad,et al.  Mobile learning: small devices, big issues , 2009 .

[43]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[44]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The Educational Value of Multiple-representations when Learning Complex Scientific Concepts , 2008 .

[45]  Jan L. Plass,et al.  Expertise reversal for iconic representations in science visualizations , 2010 .

[46]  P. Alexander.  The Development of Expertise: The Journey From Acclimation to Proficiency , 2003 .

[47]  A. Renkl,et al.  Instructional Aids to Support a Conceptual Understanding of Multiple Representations. , 2009 .

[48]  J. Dudley Herron,et al.  PROBLEM-SOLVING IN CHEMISTRY , 2002 .

[49]  R. Moreno.  Cognitive load theory: more food for thought , 2010 .

[50]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Visualization : theory and practice in science education , 2008 .

[51]  R. Kozma.  The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding , 2003 .

[52]  Joachim Engel,et al.  Supplantation of mental operations on graphs , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[53]  E. Wiebe,et al.  The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations , 2008 .

[54]  Alex H. Johnstone,et al.  Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective , 2006 .

[55]  David F. Treagust,et al.  An Evaluation of a Teaching Intervention to Promote Students’ Ability to Use Multiple Levels of Representation When Describing and Explaining Chemical Reactions , 2008 .

[56]  Ton de Jong,et al.  The effects of representational format on learning combinatorics from an interactive computer simulation , 2009 .

[57]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[58]  Faaizah Shahbodin,et al.  Chemistry problem solving instruction: a comparison of three computer-based formats for learning from hierarchical network problem representations , 2009 .

[59]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? , 1999 .

[60]  T. Jong.  Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought , 2010 .

[61]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Why Multimedia Learning is not Always Helpful , 2008 .

[62]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Students Becoming Chemists: Developing Representationl Competence , 2005 .

[63]  M. Bannert,et al.  Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation , 2003 .