The effects of static versus dynamic 3D representations on 10th grade students' atomic orbital mental model construction: Evidence from eye movement behaviors

Dynamic 3D representations enhanced students' performance.Dynamic 3D representations fostered students to allocate greater attention.Eye movements could predict students' 3D mental models of an atomic orbital.Low-spatial-ability students with dynamic 3D representations spent more attention. This study examined the effectiveness of the different spatial abilities of high school students who constructed their understanding of the atomic orbital concepts and mental models after learning with multimedia learning materials presented in static and dynamic modes of 3D representation. A total of 60 high school students participated in this study and were randomly assigned into static and dynamic 3D representation groups. The dependent variables included a pre-test and post-test on atomic orbital concepts, an atomic orbital mental model construction test, and students' eye-movement behaviors. Results showed that students who learned with dynamic 3D representation allocated a significantly greater amount of attention, exhibited better performance on the mental model test, and constructed more sophisticated 3D hybridizations of the orbital mental model than the students in the static 3D group. The logistic regression result indicated that the dynamic 3D representation group students' number of saccades and number of re-readings were positive predictors, while the number of fixations was the negative predictor, for developing the students' 3D mental models of an atomic orbital. High-spatial-ability students outperformed the low-spatial-ability students on the atomic orbital conceptual test and mental model construction, while both types of students allocated similar amounts of attention to the 3D representations. Our results demonstrated that low-spatial-ability students' eye movement behaviors positively correlate with their performance on the atomic orbital concept test and the mental model construction.

[1]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. , 1995 .

[2]  T. Höffler.  Spatial Ability: Its Influence on Learning with Visualizations—a Meta-Analytic Review , 2010 .

[3]  Stella Vosniadou,et al.  Mental Models of the Day/Night Cycle , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  J. A. Palyvos,et al.  3D visualization types in multimedia applications for science learning: A case study for 8th grade students in Greece , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[5]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[6]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Using E-Z Reader to simulate eye movements in nonreading tasks: a unified framework for understanding the eye-mind link. , 2012, Psychological review.

[7]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  SWIFT: a dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. , 2005, Psychological review.

[8]  Patrik Pluchino,et al.  Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[9]  Hyun-Jeong Lee,et al.  Instructional Design of Web-based Simulations for Learners with Different Levels of Spatial Ability , 2007 .

[10]  Miri Barak,et al.  Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[11]  Michael R. Abraham,et al.  The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students , 1995 .

[12]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: can it facilitate? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  R. Mayer.  Cognitive Theory and the Design of Multimedia Instruction: An Example of the Two‐Way Street Between Cognition and Instruction , 2002 .

[14]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics , 2003 .

[15]  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 .

[16]  M. Y. Small,et al.  Research in College Science Teaching: Spatial Visualization Training Improves Performance in Organic Chemistry. , 1983 .

[17]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Effects of Knowledge and Spatial Ability on Learning from Animation , 2007 .

[18]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas , 2005 .

[19]  Fred Paas,et al.  Attention cueing in an instructional animation: The role of presentation speed , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  Maurice Ebison,et al.  Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles , 1975 .

[21]  Yehudit Judy Dori,et al.  Enhancing Undergraduate Students' Chemistry Understanding through Project-Based Learning in an IT Environment , 2005 .

[22]  Thomas Huk,et al.  Who benefits from learning with 3D models? the case of spatial ability , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[23]  Sharon L. Coleman,et al.  Spatial Perception Skills of Chemistry Students , 1998 .

[24]  D. Leutner,et al.  Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis , 2007 .

[25]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Individual Differences in Spatial Abilities , 2005 .

[26]  E. Villaseñor.  Introduction to Quantum Mechanics , 2008, Nature.

[27]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Learning Chemistry Through the Use of a Representation-Based Knowledge Building Environment , 2002 .

[28]  G. Seddon,et al.  The Effects of Colour in Teaching the Visualisation of Rotations in Diagrams of Three‐dimensional Structures , 1985 .

[29]  Ruth B. Ekstrom,et al.  Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests , 1976 .

[30]  Paul B. Hounshell,et al.  Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry , 1995 .

[31]  S. Liversedge,et al.  Saccadic eye movements and cognition , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  J. D. Bradley,et al.  Identification and rectification of student difficulties concerning three-dimensional structures, rotation, and reflection , 1991 .

[33]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  BUILDING THE STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS OF CHEMISTRY: SOME CONSIDERATIONS FROM EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH , 2001 .

[34]  Tony Wright,et al.  Computing in Stereochemistry - 2D or 3D Representations? , 2001 .

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

[36]  Robert Tinker,et al.  Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Chemical Reactions for Use in Education , 2006 .

[37]  K. Taber,et al.  Learners’ Mental Models of the Particle Nature of Matter: A study of 16‐year‐old Swedish science students , 2009 .

[38]  Hsiao-Ching She,et al.  The impact of multimedia effect on science learning: Evidence from eye movements , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[39]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  QUANTUM-CHEMICAL CONCEPTS: ARE THEY SUITABLE FOR SECONDARY STUDENTS? , 2002 .

[40]  Bertrand M. T. Lin,et al.  An effective approach for test-sheet composition with large-scale item banks , 2006 .

[41]  M. Hegarty.  Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[42]  Paul Chandler.  Dynamic visualisations and hypermedia: Beyond the "Wow" factor , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[43]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Communicating Dynamic Behaviors: Are Interactive Multimedia Presentations Better than Static Mixed-Mode Presentations? , 2000, Diagrams.

[44]  Chih-Fu Wu,et al.  Effectiveness of applying 2D static depictions and 3D animations to orthographic views learning in graphical course , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[45]  Daniel R. Montello,et al.  Effects of Interactivity and Spatial Ability on the Comprehension of Spatial Relations in a 3D Computer Visualization , 2004 .

[46]  A. H. Johnstone,et al.  The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand , 1993 .

[47]  R. Wilson,et al.  The Vocabulary and Concepts of Organic Chemistry: Orchin/The Vocabulary and Concepts Of Organic Chemistry , 2005 .

[48]  Daniel R. Montello,et al.  How spatial abilities enhance, and are enhanced by, dental education , 2009 .

[49]  Yehudit Judy Dori,et al.  Virtual and Physical Molecular Modeling: Fostering Model Perception and Spatial Understanding , 2001, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[50]  Erol Özçelik,et al.  An eye-tracking study of how color coding affects multimedia learning , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[51]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning , 2021, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[52]  Ghislain Deslongchamps,et al.  When do spatial abilities support student comprehension of STEM visualizations? , 2013, Cognitive Processing.

[53]  Georgios Tsaparlis.  Atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals and related concepts: Conceptual difficulties among chemistry students , 1997 .

[54]  Geoff Norman,et al.  Learning anatomy: do new computer models improve spatial understanding? , 1999 .

[55]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye Movements as Reflections of Comprehension Processes in Reading , 2006 .

[56]  Detlef Urhahne,et al.  The Effect of Three-Dimensional Simulations on the Understanding of Chemical Structures and Their Properties , 2009 .

[57]  R. Mayer,et al.  For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. , 1994 .

[58]  Adrian M. Owen,et al.  The Strategic Control of Gaze Direction in the Tower of London Task , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[59]  P. Shah,et al.  Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning , 2004 .

[60]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals , 1998, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[61]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .

[62]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  Eye movements predict students' computer-based assessment performance of physics concepts in different presentation modalities , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[63]  Alan K. Griffiths,et al.  Grade-12 Students' Misconceptions Relating to Fundamental Characteristics of Atoms and Molecules. , 1992 .

[64]  Thomas Andre,et al.  Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/ animation on learning electrochemistry , 2003 .

[65]  Richard K. Lowe,et al.  An Eye Tracking Comparison of External Pointing Cues and Internal Continuous Cues in Learning with Complex Animations , 2010 .

[66]  M. Malbrán.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , 2007 .

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

[68]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  An eye movement analysis of highlighting and graphic organizer study aids for learning from expository text , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[69]  N. Mackworth,et al.  Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[70]  Michael Barnett,et al.  Conceptual Change Through Building Three-Dimensional Virtual Models , 2000 .

[71]  S. R. Baker,et al.  The relationship of visualization skills to achievements in freshman chemistry , 1972 .

[72]  Vasiliki Gkitzia,et al.  Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks , 2011 .

[73]  George M. Bodner,et al.  Spatial Ability and its Role in Organic Chemistry: A Study of Four Organic Courses. , 1987 .

[74]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning , 2005 .

[75]  W. Brewer,et al.  Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[76]  Peter Gerjets,et al.  Information visualizations for knowledge acquisition: The impact of dimensionality and color coding , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[77]  Michael C. Pyryt.  Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies , 1998 .

[78]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom , 2001 .

[79]  Detlev Leutner,et al.  The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations - Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[80]  D. Lewalter.  Cognitive Strategies for Learning from Static and Dynamic Visuals , 2003 .

[81]  Canan Nakiboğlu,et al.  INSTRUCTIONAL MISCONCEPTIONS OF TURKISH PROSPECTIVE CHEMISTRY TEACHERS ABOUT ATOMIC ORBITALS AND HYBRIDIZATION , 2003 .

[82]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Dynamic mental models in learning science : The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models , 1999 .

[83]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Some observations on mental models , 1987 .

[84]  Vesna Ferk,et al.  Students' understanding of molecular structure representations , 2003 .

[85]  Mary A. LaRussa,et al.  A STUDY OF TWO MEASURES OF SPATIAL ABILITY AS PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS IN DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GENERAL CHEMISTRY , 1987 .

[86]  Kim A. Kastens,et al.  Earth science instruction with digital data , 2000 .