Using Computer Visualizations to Introduce Grade Five Students to the Particle Nature of Matter

Secondary school science programs have long included instruction to help students understand the physical world at three interconnected levels—the observable, the particle, and the symbolic (Johnstone, 1993). Elementary school (ages 5-12) science programs, however, emphasize understanding at the observable level only beginning with early childhood explorations of sand and water and progressing to common definitions for the observable properties of solids, liquids, and gases (e.g., liquid flows and takes the shape of the container). Lending support for a focus on the observable is the Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes K-12 (Council of Ministers of Education, 1997) which expects students ages 10-11 to classify solids, liquids, and gases and identify physical and chemical change all without reference to particles. The National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) go further by cautioning that for students ages 10-14 it is premature to introduce the particle level as doing so can “distract from the understanding that can be gained from focusing on the observation and description of macroscopic features of substances…at this level…few students can comprehend the idea of atomic and molecular particles” (NRC, 1996, p. 149). These Canadian and American documents reflect a perspective on learning about the physical world that maintains that students must reach a certain developmental level before they have sufficient cognitive capabilities to understand matter at the particle level.

[1]  A. Paivio.  Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach , 1986 .

[2]  Carol L. Smith,et al.  Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts , 1991 .

[3]  Carol L. Smith,et al.  Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter , 2003 .

[4]  Yezdan Boz,et al.  Turkish Pupils’ Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter , 2006 .

[5]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: finding the right mix , 2004 .

[6]  A. Albanese,et al.  Why Do We Believe that an Atom is Colourless? Reflections about the Teaching of the Particle Model , 1997 .

[7]  R. Mayer,et al.  Animations need narrations : an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis , 1991 .

[8]  G. Salomon.  Distributed cognitions : psychological and educational considerations , 1997 .

[9]  Milena Bandiera,et al.  Research in science education in Europe , 1999 .

[10]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[11]  P. Chandler,et al.  Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn , 1994 .

[12]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[13]  P. Chandler,et al.  The crucial role of cognitive processes in the design of dynamic visualizations , 2004 .

[14]  D. Ardaç,et al.  Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change , 2004 .

[15]  J. J. Gibson.  The theory of affordances , 1977 .

[16]  S. Ainsworth,et al.  Multiple Forms of Dynamic Representation. , 2004 .

[17]  Min Liu,et al.  What Factors Make a Multimedia Learning Environment Engaging: A Case Study , 2009 .

[18]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning , 2004 .

[19]  Robert Kozma,et al.  Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for Technologies of Learning. , 2000 .

[20]  Sevil Akaygun,et al.  Using Static and Dynamic Visuals to Represent Chemical Change at Molecular Level , 2005 .

[21]  Michael J. Sanger.  Using Particulate Drawings to Determine and Improve Students' Conceptions of Pure Substances and Mixtures , 2000 .

[22]  M. Hegarty.  Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions , 2004 .

[23]  Debra A. Lieberman,et al.  Young Children's Learning With Digital Media , 2009 .

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

[25]  Wolff-Michael Roth.  Emergence of Analogies in Collaboratively Conducted Computer Simulations , 2009 .

[26]  Robert Hamilton Millar,et al.  Teaching about energy , 2005 .

[27]  Michael Scaife,et al.  Cognitive Science Approaches To Understanding Diagrammatic Representations , 2001, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[28]  P. Chandler,et al.  Evidence for Cognitive Load Theory , 1991 .

[29]  Billie Eilam.  Drops of Water and of Soap Solution: Students' Constraining Mental Models of the Nature of Matter. , 2004 .

[30]  C. W. Anderson,et al.  FOCUS ARTICLE: Implications of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory , 2006 .

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

[32]  Robert Zheng,et al.  Cognitive Effects of Multimedia Learning , 2008 .

[33]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Use of Simultaneous-Synchronized Macroscopic, Microscopic, and Symbolic Representations To Enhance the Teaching and Learning of Chemical Concepts , 1997 .

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

[35]  B. Reiser,et al.  Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners , 2009 .

[36]  R. Pea.  Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education , 1993 .

[37]  Richard K. Lowe,et al.  Dynamic visualisations and learning , 2004 .

[38]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Spatial Learning and Computer Simulations in Science , 2009 .

[39]  Sandra M. Guilbert,et al.  Beginning Elementary Science Teachers: Developing Professional Knowledge During a Limited Mentoring Experience , 2002 .

[40]  Sam Reid,et al.  A Study of Educational Simulations Part 1 - Engagement and Learning , 2008 .

[41]  Brenda J. Gustafson,et al.  Elementary Children’s Shifting Views of Models and the Nature of Matter , 2010 .

[42]  David Fortus,et al.  Designing and Testing the MoDeLS Learning Progression , 2008 .

[43]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. , 2001 .

[44]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[45]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Visualization in science education , 2005 .

[46]  Philip Johnson,et al.  Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substance‐based framework , 2009 .

[47]  M. Nakhleh,et al.  Elementary school children's beliefs about matter , 1999 .

[48]  Joseph Nussbaum,et al.  Pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross‐age study , 1981 .

[49]  R. Shaw,et al.  Perceiving, Acting and Knowing : Toward an Ecological Psychology , 1978 .

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

[51]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[52]  Myint Swe Khine,et al.  Models and Modeling , 2011 .

[53]  Jana Holsanova,et al.  Theoretical and Instructional Aspects of Learning with Visualizations , 2011 .

[54]  Renae Low.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design in a Multimedia Context , 2009 .

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

[56]  Haluk Özmen,et al.  The effects of conceptual change texts accompanied with animations on overcoming 11th grade students' alternative conceptions of chemical bonding , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[57]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends , 2003 .

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

[59]  William Joseph Donovan,et al.  Investigation of student use of Web -based tutorial materials and understanding of chemistry concepts , 2001 .

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

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

[62]  R. Mayer,et al.  Animation as an Aid to Multimedia Learning , 2002 .

[63]  Florian Schmidt-Weigand,et al.  The Influence of Visual and Temporal Dynamics on Split Attention: Evidences from Eye Tracking , 2009 .

[64]  Dorothy L. Gabel,et al.  Differential effects on the achievement of males and females of teaching the particulate nature of chemistry , 2002 .

[65]  Yael Kali,et al.  Designing Effective Visualizations for Elementary School Science , 2008, The Elementary School Journal.

[66]  J. Creswell,et al.  Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry , 2000 .

[67]  David N. Rapp,et al.  Mental Models: Theoretical Issues for Visualizations in Science Education , 2005 .

[68]  Ken Appleton,et al.  Science Activities That Work: Perceptions of Primary School Teachers , 2002 .

[69]  A. Dillon,et al.  Hypermedia as an Educational Technology: A Review of the Quantitative Research Literature on Learner Comprehension, Control, and Style , 1998 .

[70]  Anne E. Cook,et al.  Measurement of Cognitive Load During Multimedia Learning Activities , 2009 .

[71]  Tony Wright.  Images of Atoms. , 2003 .