SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Abraham, M. R., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147165.
  • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131152.
  • Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Information technology and multiple representations: New opportunities—new problems. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 6(1), 93104.
  • Anamuah-Mensah, J., Erickson, G., & Gaskell, J. (1987). Development and validation of a path analytic model of students' performance in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(8), 723738.
  • Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils' conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12–16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 5385.
  • Baker, S. R., & Talley, L. H. (1972). The relationship of visualization skills to achievement in freshman chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 49, 775776.
  • Balaban, A. T. (1999). Visual chemistry: Three-dimensional perception of chemical structures. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 251255.
  • Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (1996). Computerized molecular modeling as a tool to improve chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Science, 36, 629636.
  • Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (1999). High-school chemistry students' performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 257271.
  • Baumgartner, E., & Bell, P. (2002, April). What will we do with design principles? Design principles and principled design practice. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  • Beckwith, E. K., & Nelson, C. (1998). The ChemViz project: Using a supercomputer to illustrate abstract concepts in chemistry. Learning and Leading with Technology, 25(6), 1719.
  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 6466.
  • Benfey, O. T. (1958). August Kekule and the birth of the structural theory of organic chemistry in 1858. Journal of Chemistry Education, 35, 2123.
  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987, July). Students' visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 117120.
  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988, May). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, 8992.
  • Bodner, G. M., & Domin, D. S. (1996, June). The role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. Paper presented at the ChemConf'96, an Online Symposium. http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Topic/Chemistry/ChemConference/ChemConf96/Home.htm.
  • Bodner, G. M., & McMillen, T. L. B. (1986). Cognitive restructuring as an early stage in problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 727737.
  • Bowen, C. W. (1990). Representational systems used by graduate students while problem solving in organic synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), 351370.
  • Brosnan, T., & Reynolds, Y. (2001). Student's explanations of chemical phenomena: Macro and micro differences. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(1), 6978.
  • Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4(2), 75100.
  • Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carter, C. S., LaRussa, M. A., & Bodner, G. M. (1987). A study of two measures of spatial ability as predictors of success in different levels of general chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(7), 645657.
  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293332.
  • Chandran, S., Treagust, D. F., & Tobin, K. (1987). The role of cognitive factors in chemistry achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(2), 145160.
  • Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves learning. Cognitive Science, 18, 439478.
  • Chi, M. T. H., & Feltovich, P. J. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121152.
  • Copolo, C. F., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 295305.
  • Crouch, R. D., Holden, M. S., & Samet, C. (1996). CAChe molecular modeling: A visualization tool early in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(10), 916918.
  • Davis, E. A. (1995, April). Students' explanations: Factors for success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.
  • Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819837.
  • Dechsri, P., Heikkinen, H. W., & Jones, L. L. (1997). Effect of a laboratory manual design incorporating visual information-processing aids on student learning and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 891904.
  • Dershimer, C., & Rasmussen, P. (1990). Seeing through chemistry [multimedia computer program]. Ann Arbor, MI: Office of Instructional Technology, University of Michigan.
  • D'Esposito, M., Aguirre, G. K., Zarahn, E., Ballard, D., Shin, R. K., & Lease, J. (1998). Functional MRI studies of spatial and nonspatial working memory. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 113.
  • Dijkstra, S. (1997). The integration of instructional systems design models and constructivistic design principles. Instructional Science, 25(1), 113.
  • Fennema, E., & Tartre, L. A. (1985). The use of spatial visualization in mathematics by girls and boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 184206.
  • Friedel, A. W., Gabel, D. L., & Samuel, J. (1990). Using analogs for chemistry problem solving: Does it increase understanding? School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 674682.
  • Furio, C., Calatayud, M. L., Barcenas, S. L., & Padilla, O. M. (2000). Functional fixedness and functional reduction as common sense reasonings in chemical equilibrium and in geometry and polarity of molecules. Science Education, 84(5), 545565.
  • Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J.Fraser, & K. G.Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233248). Great Britain: Kluwer.
  • Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 695697.
  • Gabel, D., & Sherwood, R. (1980). The effect of student manipulation of molecular models on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(1), 7581.
  • Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students' alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 6995.
  • Gilbert, J. K., & Osborne, R. J. (1980). The use of models in science and science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 313.
  • Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student generated diagrams versus student generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 3954.
  • Griffiths, 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), 611628.
  • Gyselinck, V., Cornoldi, C., Dubois, V., De Beni, R., & Ehrlich, M.-F. (2002). Visuospatial memory and phonological loop in learning from multimedia. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 665685.
  • Habraken, C. L. (1996). Perceptions of chemistry: Why is the common perception of chemistry, the most visual of sciences, so distorted? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(3), 193201.
  • Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1984). Misconceptions of chemical equilibrium. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 205214.
  • Haidar, A. H., & Abraham, M. R. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 919938.
  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509534.
  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 420429.
  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352381.
  • Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static diagrams of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 10841102.
  • Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R.Barr, M. L.Kamil, & P. D.Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol II, pp. 641668). New York: Longman.
  • Hoffmann, R., & Laszlo, R. (1991). Representation in chemistry. Angewandte Chemie, 30, 116.
  • Huddle, P. A., & Pillay, A. E. (1996). An in-depth study of misconceptions in stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at a South African university. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 6577.
  • Hurwitz, C. L., & Abegg, G. (1999). A teacher's perspective on technology in the classroom: Computer visualization, concept maps and learning logs. Journal of Education, 181(2), 123143.
  • Hyman, B. S. (1982). The role of student manipulation of molecular models and spatial visualization ability on achievement in college level organic chemistry. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(5-A), 1491.
  • Ingham, A., & Gilbert, J. K. (1991). The use of analog models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 193202.
  • Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children's understanding of a “basi” particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 393412.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1998). Imagery, visualization, and thinking. In J.Hochberg (Ed.), Perception and cognition at century's end (pp. 441467). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  • Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377379.
  • Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701705.
  • Jones, T., & Berger, C. (1995, April). Students' use of multimedia science instruction: The MTV generation? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.
  • Keck, G. E., Wager, T. T., & Rodriquez, J. F. D. (1999). Total syntheses of (−)-lycoricidine, (+)-lycoricidine, and (+)-narciclasine via 6-exo cyclizations of substituted vinyl radicals with oxime ethers. Journal of American Chemical Society, 121, 51765190.
  • 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), 883903.
  • Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179211.
  • Kozma, R. B. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. J. R.Kozma (Ed.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advance designs for technologies of learning (pp. 1146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kozma, R. B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105143.
  • 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, 949968.
  • Kozma, R. B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In R. G. S.Vosniadou, E.DeCorte, & H.Mandel (Eds.), International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 4160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Krajcik, J. S. (1989). Students' interactions with science software containing dynamic visuals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.
  • Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students' understanding of chemical concepts. In Y. S. M.Glynn, R. H.Yanny, & B. K.Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science: International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 117145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Larkin, J., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65100.
  • Lavioe, D. L. (1995). Videodisc technology: Applications for science teaching. In D. A.Thomas (Ed.), Scientific visualization in mathematics and science teaching (pp. 4565). Charlottesville, VA: The Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  • Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translation among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C.Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3340). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Loh, B., Reiser, B. J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D. C., Gomez, L. M., & Marshall, S. (2001). Developing reflective inquiry practices: A case study of software, the teacher, and students. In K.Crowley, C. D.Schunn, & T.Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83(1), 3354.
  • Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 119.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444452.
  • Michas, I. C., & Berry, D. C. (2001). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555575.
  • Mishra, P., & Spiro, R. J. (1998, April). Multiple representations of the periodic system: A cognitively based multimedia hypertext. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Education Research Association, San Diego, CA.
  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). Visuospatial working memory, central executive functioning, and psychometric visuospatial abilities: How are they related? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 621640.
  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191196.
  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 5255.
  • Narayanan, H. N., & Hegarty, M. (1998). On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 267301.
  • Niaz, M. (1987). The role of cognitive factors in the teaching of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 5(1), 716.
  • Niaz, M. (1988). Manipulation of M demand of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance: A neo-Piagetian study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 643657.
  • Niaz, M. (1989). Translation of algebraic equations and its relation to formal operational reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(9), 785793.
  • Niaz, M., & Lawson, A. E. (1985). Balancing chemical equations: The role of developmental level and mental capacity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1), 4151.
  • Niaz, M., & Robinson, W. R. (1992). Manipulation of logical structure of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 211216.
  • Noh, T., & Scharmann, L. C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students' conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 199217.
  • Nye, M. J. (1993). From chemical philosophy to theoretical chemistry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Oestermeier, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition, 75(1), 65104.
  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Pattison, P., & Grieve, N. (1984). Do spatial skills contribute to sex differences in different types of mathematical problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 678689.
  • Pribyl, J. R., & Bodner, G. M. (1987). Spatial ability and its role in organic chemistry: A study of four organic courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(3), 229240.
  • Renstroem, L., Andersson, B., & Marton, F. (1990). Students' conceptions of matter. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 555569.
  • Rodrigues, S., Smith, A., & Ainley, M. (2001). Video clips and animation in chemistry CD-ROMs: Student interest and preference. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 47(2), 910, 12–16.
  • Roth, W.-M. (1997). Why may students fail to learn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 509533.
  • Rothenberg, A. (1995). Creative cognitive processes in Kekule's discovery of the structure of the benzene molecule. American Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 419438.
  • Rozzelle, A. A., & Rosenfeld, S. M. (1985). Stereoscopic projection in organic chemistry: Bridging the gap between two and three dimensions. Journal of Chemical Education, 62(12), 10841085.
  • Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Diego, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Sanger, M. J., Brecheisen, D. M., & Hynek, B. M. (2001). Can computer animations affect college biology students' conceptions about diffusion and osmosis? American Biology Teacher, 63(2), 104109.
  • Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2000). Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 521537.
  • 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), 253279.
  • Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., Jones, L. 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), 305317.
  • Seddon, G. M., & Eniaiyeju, P. A. (1986). The understanding of pictorial depth cues, and the ability to visualise the rotation of three-dimensional structures in diagrams. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4(1), 2937.
  • Seddon, G. M., Eniaiyeju, P. A., & Chia, L. H. L. (1985). The factor structure for mental rotations of three-dimensional structures represented in diagrams. Research in Science and Technological Education, 3(1), 2942.
  • Seddon, G. M., & Shubber, K. E. (1985). Learning the visualization of three-dimensional spatial relationships in diagrams at different ages in Bahrain. Research in Science and Technological Education, 3(2), 97108.
  • Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implication for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 4769.
  • Shah, P., &Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(1), 427.
  • Shubbar, K. E. (1990). Learning the visualization of rotations in diagrams of three-dimensional structures. Research in Science and Technological Education, 8(2), 145154.
  • Small, M. Y., & Morton, M. E. (1983). Research in college science teaching: Spatial visualization training improves performance in organic chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 13(1), 4143.
  • Smith, S., & Stovall, I. (1996). Networked instructional chemistry: Using technology to teach chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(10), 911915.
  • Solomonidou, C., & Stavridou, H. (2000). From inert objects to chemical substance: Students' initial conceptions and conceptual development during an introductory experimental chemistry sequence. Science Education, 84(3), 382400.
  • Srinivasan, A. R., & Olson, W. K. (1989). Viewing stereo drawings. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(8), 664665.
  • Staver, J. R., & Halsted, D. A. (1985). The effects of reasoning, use of models, sex type, and their interactions on posttest achievement in chemical bonding after constant instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 437447.
  • Staver, J. R., & Jacks, T. (1988). The influence of cognitive reasoning level, cognitive restructuring ability, disembedding ability, working memory capacity, and prior knowledge on students' performance on balancing equations by inspection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9), 763775.
  • Stavy, R. (1991). Children's ideas about matter. School Science and Mathematics, 91(6), 240244.
  • Stern, J. (2000). The design of learning software: Principles learned from the computer as learning partner project. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 4965.
  • Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251296.
  • Tingle, J. B., & Good, R. G. (1990). Effects of cooperative grouping on stoichiometric problem solving in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(7), 671683.
  • 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), 460464.
  • Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247262.
  • van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12, 121138.
  • Vekiri, I. (2001). An investigation of the role of graphical design and student characteristics in scientific reasoning with weather maps. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
  • Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 521534.
  • Wilson, J. M. (1994). Network representations of knowledge about chemical equilibrium: Variations with achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 11331147.
  • Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211247.
  • 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), 821842.
  • Yang, E. M., Greenbowe, T., & Andre, T. (1999, April). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
  • Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 449489.