Abstract
Visual representations play a critical role in the communication of science concepts for scientists and students alike. However, recent research suggests that novice students experience difficulty extracting relevant information from representations. This study examined students’ interpretations of visual representations of DNA replication. Each of the four steps of DNA replication included in the instructional presentation was represented as a text slide, a simple 2D graphic, and a rich 3D graphic. Participants were middle grade girls (n = 21) attending a summer math and science program. Students’ eye movements were measured as they viewed the representations. Participants were interviewed following instruction to assess their perceived salient features. Eye tracking fixation counts indicated that the same features (look zones) in the corresponding 2D and 3D graphics had different salience. The interviews revealed that students used different characteristics such as color, shape, and complexity to make sense of the graphics. The results of this study have implications for the design of instructional representations. Since many students have difficulty distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant information, cueing and directing student attention through the instructional representation could allow cognitive resources to be directed to the most relevant material.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ametller, J., and Pinto, R. (2002). Students’ reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level. International Journal of Science Education 24: 285–312.
Beck, C. R. (1984). Visual cueing strategies: Pictorial, textual, and combinational effects. Educational Communication and Technology Journal 32: 207–216.
Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education 22: 895–935.
Carney, R. N., and Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review 14: 5–26.
Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology 62: 233–246.
Chang, K. T., Antes, J., and Lenzen, T. (1985). The effect of experience on reading topographic relief information: Analyses of performance and eye movements. The Cartographic Journal 22: 88–94.
Cheng, P. C. H. (1999). Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computers and Education 33: 109–130.
Chevrier, J., and Delorme, A. (1980). Aesthetic preferences: Influence of perceptual ability, age, and complexity of stimulus. Perceptual and Motor Skill 50: 839–849.
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., and Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 7–75.
Duchowski, A. T. (2002). A breadth-first year survey of eye-tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 34: 455–470.
Dwyer, F. M. (1969). The effect of varying the amount of realistic detail in visual illustrations designed to complement programmed instruction. Programmed Learning 6: 147–153.
Fleming, M., and Levie, W. H. (1978). Instructional Message Design, Educational Technology Publication, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Goldberg, J. H., and Kotval, X. P. (1999). Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: Methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 24: 631–645.
Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., and Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific text. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., and Pearson, P. D. (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research: Volume 2, Longman, New York, pp. 641–668.
Irving, J. L. (1997). What Current Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner, National Middle School Association, Columbus.
Jacobson, M. J., and Kozma, R. B. (2000). Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for Technologies of Learning, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Joseph, J. H., and Dwyer, F. M. (1984). The effects of prior knowledge, presentation mode, and visual realism on student achievement. Journal of Experimental Education 52: 110–121.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13: 351–371.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction 12: 1–10.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction 13: 205–226.
Kozma, R., and 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.
Larkin, J. H., and Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11: 65–99.
Linn, M. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education 25: 727–758.
Mackworth, N. H., and Morandi, A. J. (1967). The gaze selects informative details with pictures. Perception and Psychophysics 7: 173–178.
Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education 83: 33–54.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63: 81–97.
Myatt, B., and Carter, J. M. (1979). Picture preferences of children and young adults. Educational Communication and Technology Journal 27: 45–53.
National Science Resources Center. (1997). Science for all children, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Peeck, J. (1987). The role of illustrations in processing and remembering illustrated text. In Willows, D. M., and Houghton, H. A. (Eds.), The Psychology of Illustrations: Basic Research: Volume 1, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 115–151.
Perkins, D. N., and Unger, C. (1994). A new look at representations for mathematics and science learning. Instructional Science 22: 1–37.
Pozzer, L. L., and Roth, W. M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40: 1089–1114.
Pozzer-Ardenghi, L. L., and Roth, W. M. (2005). Making sense of photographs. Science Education 89: 219–241.
Reid, D. J., and Wicks, S. Y. (1988). Children’s perception of colour on a school microcomputer. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology 25: 348–355.
Rieber, L. P. (1991). Effects of visual grouping strategies of computer-animated presentations on selective attention in science. Educational Technology Research and Development 39: 5–15.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review 14: 101–120.
Schnotz, W., and Kulhavy, R. W. (Eds.). (1994). Comprehension of Graphics, Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam.
Schnotz, W., and Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 13: 141–156.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 13: 227–237.
Stevenson, C. (1998). Teaching Ten to Fourteen Year Olds, Longman, New York.
Stylianidou, F., Ormerod, F., and Ogborn, J. (2002). Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupils’ readings of them. International Journal of Science Education 24: 257–283.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., and Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10: 251–296.
Travers, R. M. W., and Alvarado, V. (1970). The design of pictures for teaching children in elementary schools. AV Communication Review 18: 47–64.
Treisman, A. M., and Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology 12: 97–136.
van Sommeren, M., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H., and de Jong, T. D. (Eds.). (1998). Learning with Multiple Representations, Permagon, Amsterdam.
Von Keitz, B. (1988). Eye-movement research: Do consumers use the information they are offered? Marketing and Research Today 16: 217–224.
Weidenmann, B. (1989). When good pictures fail: An information-processing approach to the effect of illustration. In Mandl, H., and Levin, J. R. (Eds.), Knowledge Acquisition from Text and Pictures, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 157–170.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Patrick, M.D., Carter, G. & Wiebe, E.N. Visual Representations of DNA Replication: Middle Grades Students’ Perceptions and Interpretations. J Sci Educ Technol 14, 353–365 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-7200-6
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-7200-6