Abstract
Ever since Johnstone (1993) addressed the three levels of chemistry (symbolic, macro, and microscopic or so called submicro currently), many studies investigate how multimedia could support constructing, developing, and evaluating students’ mental representations of chemistry at the three levels. This chapter focuses on how multimedia could enhance chemistry learning of the triplet relationship and discusses theories and empirical studies from the following perspectives: (1) multimedia as a modeling tool (discussing multiple representations and mental models in learning and teaching chemistry), (2) multimedia as a learning tool (introducing tools such as 4M:Chem, eChem, and ChemSence), (3) multimedia as an assessment tool (such as presenting computerized two-tier diagnostic instruments), and (4) multimedia as an instructional tool (linking findings of students’ mental representations to the development of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in chemistry). Implications for chemical education are discussed in terms of theoretical and practical approaches.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Literature About Students’ Conceptions
Agapove, O., Jones, L., Ushakov, A., Ratcliffe, A., & Martin, M. A. V. (2002). Encouraging independent chemistry learning through multimedia design experiences, Chemical Education International, 3, 1.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1269–1298.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, May, 89–92.
Buckley, B. C. (1995). A case of intentional model-based learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Buckley, B. C., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building mental models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 119–135). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chan. W. J. (2002). Investigating the effectiveness of dynamic analogy on learning chemical equilibrium—Eighth graders’ conceptual change on ontological nature of concepts and mental models. Unpublished Master Thesis, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chiu, M. H. (2007). Promoting Chemical Education via Research And InstructioN-Based/Oriented Work (RAINBOW). Paper presented at the 41st IUPAC World Chemistry Congress: Chemistry protecting Health, Natural Environment and Cultural Heritage, Turin, Italy, August 5–11, 2007.
Chiu, M. H., & Chung, S. L. (2007). Investigating correctness, consistency, and completeness of students’ mental models and paths of conceptual change in learning the nature of gas particles via multiple modeling activities. Paper presented at the ESERA, Molmo, Sweden, August 21–25, 2007.
Chiu, M. L., Chiu, M. H., & Ho, C. Y. (2003). Using cognitive-based dynamic representations to diagnose students’ conceptions of the characteristics of matter. Proceedings of the National Science Council Part D: Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 12(3), 91–99.
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, 1073–1091.
Craik, K. (1943). The nature of exploration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, B. A., Zemba-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613–637.
Dori, Y. J., & Barnea, N. (1997). In-service chemistry teachers’ training: The impact of introducing computer technology on teachers’ attitudes and classroom implementation. International Journal of Science Education, 19(5), 577–592.
Duit, R. (2007). Bibliography – STCSE: Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science Education. Retrieved from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html. Retrieved 2007.10.31.
Ealy, J. B. (2004). Students’ understanding is enhanced through molecular modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 461–471.
Ebenezer, J. V. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students’ conceptions: Animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(1), 73–92.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier is our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research and teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3–56.
Gilbert, J. K. (2007). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9–28). Boston: Kluwer Academic publishers.
Gilbert, J. K., Boutler, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert and C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education, (pp. 3–17). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gilbert, J. K., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations Part 2: Whose voice? Whose ears? International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 187–203.
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.
Griffith, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611–628.
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., & Jay, E. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 799–822.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2006). Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 701–732.
Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 839–857.
Hoffman, J. L., Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of learners’ science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323–346.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–704.
Jones, L. (1999). Learning chemistry though design and construction. UniServe Science News, 14, 3–7.
Jones, L., & Persichitte, K. A. (2001). Differential effects of a multimedia goal-based scenario to teach introductory biochemistry – Who benefits most? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 305–317.
Justi, R. S. (2000). Teaching with historical models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 209–226). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translation of representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883–903.
Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.
Kozma, R. B. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advance designs for technologies of learning (pp. 11–46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968.
Kozma, R. Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In S. Vosniadou, R. Glaser, E. DeCorte, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 41–60), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton. (Eds.), The psychology of learning science: International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 117–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Liang, J. C., & Chiu, M. H. (2003). Using dynamic representations to diagnose students’ conceptions of the behavior of gas particles. Paper presented at the International Conference on Science & Mathematics Learning, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Liang, J. C., & Chiu, M. H. (2004, April). Comparing students’ performance with science teachers’ predictions in the behavior of gas particles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada.
Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration, Science Education, 87, 517–538.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computer, teachers, and peers: Science learning partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J. D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships: case studies of students’ learning about ‘Rats in Space’ and ‘Deformed Frogs’. ET R & D, 47(2), 61–84.
Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2004). The nature and sharing of teacher knowledge of technology in a student teacher/mentor teacher pair. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 421–437.
Monaghan, J., & Slotta, J. D. (2001). Innovative teacher education using the web-based integrated science environment (WISE). Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Norfolk, VA.
Novak, A. M., & Gleason, C. I. (2000). Incorporating portable technology to enhance an inquiry, project-based middle school science classroom. In R. T. Tinker & J. S. Krajcik (Eds.), Portable technologies science learning in context (pp. 29–62). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Oversby, J. (2000). Models in explanations of chemistry: The case of acidity. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer academic publishers.
Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51–66.
Quellmalz, E. S. & Kozma, R. (2003). Designing assessments of learning with technology. Assessment in Education, 10(3), 389–407.
Ravitz, J. (2002). CILT2000: Using technology to support ongoing formative assessment in the classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(3), 293–296.
Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Diego, CA: Jossey Bass.
Schank, P., & Kozma, R. (2002). Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(3), 253–279.
Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., Persichitte, K. A., & Jones, L. L. (2001). Relation of student characteristics to learning of basic biochemistry concepts from a multimedia goal-based scenario. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440 875).
Schwarts, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodelling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific model. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.
Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry-incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285–302.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Treagust, D. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic test to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169.
Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 327–346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368.
Tuckey, H., Selvaratnam, M., & Bradley, J. (1991). Identification and rectification of student difficulties concerning three-dimensional structures, rotation, and reflection. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(6), 460–464.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Guest Ed.), Special Issue on Conceptual Change, Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585.
Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel, Handbook of research of science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Wilensky, U. (1999). GasLab: An extensible modeling tool-kit for exploring micro- and macro-views of gases. In W. Feurzeig & N. Roberts (Eds.), Modeling and simulation in precollege science and mathematics (pp. 151–178). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Woody, A. (1995). The explanatory power of our models: A philosophical analysis with some implications for science education. In F. Finley, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifields (Eds.), Proceeding of the third international history, philosophy, and science teaching conference (Vol. 2. pp. 1295–1304). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.
Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465–492.
Xie, Q., & Tinker, R. (2006). Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 77–83.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chiu, MH., Wu, HK. (2009). The Roles of Multimedia in the Teaching and Learning of the Triplet Relationship in Chemistry. In: Gilbert, J.K., Treagust, D. (eds) Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8871-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8872-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)