CHAPTER 6 TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH THREE- DIMENSIONAL REPRESENTATIONS

Computer-based visualizations play a profoundly important role in chemistry instruction. In this chapter, we review the role of visualization tools and possible ways in which they may influence thinking about chemistry. There are now several visualization systems available that allow students to manipulate important variables in obtain a solution to a scientific problem. We discuss the fundamental differences between these tools, and we emphasize the use of each within the context of constructivist curricula and pedagogies. We also consider the impact such tools may have on visuo-spatial thinking. We suggest that although visuo-spatial ability may be important in visualization use, its role has at times been overemphasized. We argue for a more nuanced, richer understanding of the many ways in which visuo- spatial reasoning is used in solving chemistry problems. This discussion leads to a set of design principles for the use of visualization tools in teaching chemistry. Finally, we present our work on the Kinemage Authorship Project, a program designed to assist students in understanding spatial structures in complex, biochemical molecules. The Kinemage Authorship Project allows students to construct their own molecular visualizations, and we discuss how this may lead to greater understanding of the spatial properties of molecules. This constructivist program embodies many of the design principles that we present earlier in the chapter.

[1]  Uri Wilensky,et al.  A Hands-on Modeling Approach to Evolution: Learning about the Evolution of Cooperation and Altruism Through Multi-Agent Modeling - The EACH Project , 2000 .

[2]  Julie B. Ealy,et al.  A Student Evaluation of Molecular Modeling in First Year College Chemistry , 1999 .

[3]  M. Stieff.  A localized model of spatial cognition in chemistry , 2004 .

[4]  C. L. Habraken.  Perceptions of chemistry: Why is the common perception of chemistry, the most visual of sciences, so distorted? , 1996 .

[5]  Hans Neurath,et al.  The Kinemage: A tool for scientific communication , 1996 .

[6]  Yael Kali,et al.  Software for Assisting High-School Students in the Spatial Perception of Geological Structures , 1997 .

[7]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Promoting Conceptual Understanding of Chemical Representations: Students' Use of a Visualization Tool in the Classroom , 2000 .

[8]  Uri Wilensky,et al.  GasLab—an Extensible Modeling Toolkit for Exploring Micro- and Macro- Views of Gases , 1999 .

[9]  Devon C. Duhaney.  Teacher Education: Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology , 2001 .

[10]  Karla Krueger,et al.  Preservice teacher technology competencies , 2000 .

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

[12]  S. Pickering,et al.  The development of visuo-spatial working memory , 2001, Memory.

[13]  Allan Collins,et al.  Design Issues for Learning Environments. , 1993 .

[14]  M. Resnick,et al.  Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making Sense of the World , 1999 .

[15]  Cindy Samet,et al.  CAChe Molecular Modeling: A Visualization Tool Early in the Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum , 1996 .

[16]  D C Richardson,et al.  Kinemages--simple macromolecular graphics for interactive teaching and publication. , 1994, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[17]  Thomas Keating,et al.  The Virtual Solar System Project: Developing Conceptual Understanding of Astronomical Concepts Through Building Three-Dimensional Computational Models , 2002 .

[18]  Jonathan E. Roberts,et al.  Sex Differences on a Computerized Mental Rotation Task Disappear with Computer Familiarization , 2000, Perceptual and motor skills.

[19]  Darrell L. Butler,et al.  Barriers to Adopting Technology for Teaching and Learning , 2002 .

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

[21]  R. Shepard,et al.  Second-order isomorphism of internal representations: Shapes of states ☆ , 1970 .

[22]  Daniel C. Edelson.  Learning-for-use : A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities , 2001 .

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

[24]  Tae-Hee Noh,et al.  Instructional influence of a molecular‐level pictorial presentation of matter on students' conceptions and problem‐solving ability , 1997 .

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

[26]  David Hammer,et al.  Dynaturtle Revisited: Learning Physics Through Collaborative Design of a Computer Model , 1993, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[27]  Mike Stieff,et al.  Connected Chemistry—Incorporating Interactive Simulations into the Chemistry Classroom , 2003 .

[28]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[29]  Melody Voith.  MAKE YOUR OWN 3-D MODELS , 2003 .

[30]  M. Just,et al.  The psychology of reading and language comprehension , 1986 .

[31]  S. Brownlow,et al.  Gender Differences in Spatial Task Performance as a Function of Speed or Accuracy Orientation , 2000 .

[32]  GEORGE M. BODNER,et al.  The Purdue Visualization of Rotations Test , 1997 .

[33]  T. Wright,et al.  A Picture Memory. , 2003 .

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

[35]  Carol Ann Miderski,et al.  How Gender and College Chemistry Experience Influence Mental Rotation Ability. , 2001 .

[36]  Yael Kali,et al.  A Virtual Journey within the Rock-Cycle: A Software Kit for the Development of Systems-Thinking in the Context of the Earth's Crust , 2003 .

[37]  G. Bodner,et al.  COGNITIVE RESTRUCTURING AS AN EARLY STAGE IN PROBLEM SOLVING , 1986 .

[38]  J. Richardson,et al.  Teaching molecular 3‐D literacy , 2002 .

[39]  R. Kozma,et al.  The Roles of Representations and Tools in the Chemistry Laboratory and Their Implications for Chemistry Learning , 2000 .

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

[41]  David N. Perkins,et al.  Technology Meets Constructivism: Do They Make a Marriage? , 1991 .

[42]  F. J. Langdon,et al.  The Child's Conception of Space , 1967 .

[43]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[44]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  The Imagery Debate: Analogue Media Versus Tacit Knowledge , 1988 .

[45]  J. Richardson,et al.  Teaching and assessing three-dimensional molecular literacy in undergraduate biochemistry , 2002 .

[46]  K. Heyer,et al.  Selective loss of visual and verbal information in STM by means of visual and verbal interpolated tasks , 1971 .

[47]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  Addressing the Challenges of Inquiry-Based Learning Through Technology and Curriculum Design , 1999 .

[48]  B. White,et al.  Evaluation of molecular visualization software for teaching protein structure differing outcomes from lecture and lab: Differing outcomes from lecture and lab , 2002 .

[49]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Knowledge Representation , 1998 .

[50]  Brian J. Reiser.  BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms: Twenty-five years of progress , 2001 .

[51]  S Pinker,et al.  Spontaneous imagery scanning in mental extrapolation. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[52]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Shuttling Between Depictive Models and Abstract Rules: Induction and Fallback , 1996, Cogn. Sci..

[53]  M. Goodale.  Image and Brain: The Resolution of the Imagery Debate , 1995 .

[54]  Peter A. Rubba,et al.  Translation of representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge , 1993 .

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