Limits and Potentials of Bottom-up Processing of Multiple
External Chemical Representations
David Corradi;
University of Leuven (KU Leuven)
Dekenstraat 2 bus 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
david.corradi@ppw.kuleuven.be
Jan Elen;
University of Leuven (KU Leuven)
Dekenstraat 2 bus 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
jan.elen@ppw.kuleuven.be
Geraldine Clarebout;
University of Leuven (KU Leuven)
Dekenstraat 2 bus 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
geraldine.clarebout@ppw.kuleuven.be
Abstract. When learning with Multiple External Representations (MER), low prior knowledge
learners are said to be limited in using these MER to achieve conceptual understanding. Yet little is
known about what these limitations precisely entail. To understand this, we presented 101 low prior
knowledge level learners with chemical MER to see a) how many, and what kind of ideas
(propositions) learners remembered from these MER and b) how these ideas impact conceptual
understanding of the content. ANOVA and regression analysis found that it is not the amount of ideas
remembered; more important to achieve conceptual understanding is whether those ideas are correct or
not, and whether these are ideas that connect the MER to each other.
Keywords: Chemical Representations; Prior knowledge; Conceptual Understanding; Propositions;
Introduction
Multiple External Representations (MER; e.g., text, symbols & images) of scientific concepts are
crucial to achieve the learning goal of conceptual understanding of scientific concepts (Schnotz &
Bannert, 2003). Research has claimed that integrating different kinds of information from diverse
representational formats into a coherent structure is necessary to fully understand the concepts and
principles of a scientific domain (Berthold & Renkl, 2009). Models on learning with representations
have suggested that the combination of descriptive representations (e.g., texts, symbols) and depictive
representations (e.g., images) can be beneficial for learning (Ainsworth, 2006; Schnotz & Bannert,
2003). Mental model construction is said to help, as linguistic propositional representations can
interact with non-linguistic mental models to form coherent schemata of the information (e.g., Seufert,
2003). Yet, previous research (Corradi, Clarebout & Elen, in press) with low prior knowledge learners
has found limitations when these external representations are texts with symbolic and submicroscopic
representations in the domain of chemistry. As limited prior knowledge is available, and unless
instructional aids are added (e.g., Berthold & Renkl, 2009), learners fail to give sufficient attention to
other representations than texts, fail to link information and hence fail to increase their understanding
of concepts more compared to learners who are helped (Corradi, et al., in press). As research details,
low prior knowledge learners tend to memorize ideas separately rather than to look for links between
concepts (e.g., Machiels-Bongaerts & Schmidt, 1995). Furthermore, these separate ideas are sensitive
for containing misunderstandings (Treagust, Chittleborough & Mamiala, 2002), whereby the most
important ideas are often ignored (e.g., Kozma & Russell, 1997). All this makes coherence forming of
MER – which is essential when learning with MER (e.g., Seufert, 2003) – difficult, if not impossible.
Therefore, it remains unclear how the combination of descriptive texts with depictive
submicroscopic and descriptive symbolic representations are used to construct relevant schemata when
learners are limited by their low prior knowledge of the domain. Yet, as far as we know, very little
research has detailed what the precise impact is of combinations of chemical representations, such as
symbols and submicroscopic representations, on mental model creation with low prior knowledge
learners. So knowing that learners with low prior knowledge filter and misinterpret chemical MER we
want to know if 1) there is an advantage of the combination of depictive and descriptive
representations for both increase of understanding and the type and amount of information that is
being filtered; and 2) if the remembered information influences gains in conceptual understanding. To
understand how learners filter ideas from representations, we will use the notion of propositions,
which we operationalize as segments of a representation involving a single idea (Recht & Leslie,
1988). To understand what the impact is of each representation(al combination) we predict that
(hypothesis 1) the group that receive texts with symbolic and submicroscopic representations will
differ significantly concerning learning gains with the groups that receive only two representations
(text+symbolic; text+submicroscopic) or only one (text-only). Concerning the relationship between
the remembered information and the construction of the mental model we predict that (hypothesis 2)
amount of propositions will not influence the amount of correct propositions; and we predict that
(hypothesis 3) learners will not have more propositions or more correct propositions deduced from a
single representation compared to learners who receive the information through MER. Finally we
think that (hypothesis 4) the amount of correctly remembered propositions influences the increase in
conceptual understanding.
Methods
Participants and design. Participants were 101 first and second year college students in Socioeducational Care Work. The study is a pre-post randomized experiment. We focused on chemistry, and
our MER were symbols, texts and submicroscopic representations (see, Corradi, et al., in press).
Group 1 (n=23) was the text-only condition (control group). Group 2 (n=25) received texts and
symbolic representations. Group 3 (n=26) received texts and submicroscopic representations. Group 4
(n=27) received texts with symbols and submicroscopic representations.
Materials, Instruments and Procedure. Pre and post-tests measured understanding of basic chemical
concepts. Materials were a 1300-word text and, depending on the condition, learners received texts
either alone or with one or two types of representations added, whereby each representation was
printed on two pages. After studying the MER, learners received a short intermediate task, then the
assignment to write down in short sentences (no drawings or symbols) what they remembered from
the intervention, before they received the post-test.
From the assignment after the intermediate task, we used propositions (defined as a single idea
expressed through minimum a verb and a noun; Recht & Leslie, 1988), which can be counted,
analyzed whether correct or wrong, what representation they originated from and whether it is from
one or more representations. This allowed us see what the precise effect is of single versus multiple
external representation on learners with limited schemata of chemistry. Also, this allowed us to see
how mental model construction is related to conceptual understanding.
Results and Discussion
Pre-test results did not significantly differed between the groups, F(3,97)= .269, p=.848, η² p= .008.
Most learners increased their understanding of chemistry significantly, t(100)= 12.601, p<.001.
However, there was no significant difference between the different groups, concerning the learning
gains, F(3,97)= 1.552, p=.206, η²p= .046 (hypothesis 1 confirmed). There was a significant difference
in the amount of propositions remembered (hypothesis 2 rejected), F(3,97)= 3.662, p=.016, η²p= .101.
TukeyHSD post hoc found that the group who received information through texts and submicroscopic
representations scored significantly higher than groups who received all three representations (6.39, p=
.016). There was also a marginal significant difference between text-only (group 1) and text with
submicro representations (group 3) (5.58, p=.060). We found a marginal difference for the correct
propositions, F(3,97)= 2.633, p=.054, η²p= .075. However, seen in proportion (correct propositions
divided by all propositions remembered), no significant difference was found between the groups
(hypothesis 3 confirmed), F(3,97)= 1.618, p=.19, η² p= .048. We also found that this variable (correct
propositions divided by all propositions) is the only predictor of increase in conceptual understanding
(.30) with R²=.09, F(1, 100)= 7.44, p= .008 (hypothesis 4 rejected). Next to this, learning gains of
conceptual understanding correlates with the amount of overlapping propositions remembered, .547,
p=.003, which means that it is not the amount of ideas remembered, but their specific nature (whether
correct or not and whether overlapping or not) that provides indications of how well learners formed a
coherent schemata of the information. In the light of the model of Schnotz and Bannert (e.g., 2003) we
found an advantage of the combination of descriptive plus depictive compared to other groups
concerning the amount of ideas remembered, this did not give an advantage for their understanding of
chemistry. Forming schemata of abstract chemical concepts cannot be solely based on combining
depictive and descriptive representations, but learners in the text+submicro group do seem to have an
advantage over the other groups as they remember significantly more. Learners in the group with three
representations remembered the least amount of ideas, but the more overlapping propositions were
remembered (overlapping between the three representations) the more they seem to have increased
their understanding of chemical concepts. Our most important conclusion is that low prior knowledge
learners are sensitive towards learning with multiple representations, but our results indicate that they
do hold the potential to achieve conceptual understanding. A more detailed discussion will be
provided at the conference.
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple
representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple
representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70–87.
Corradi, D., Elen, J., Clarebout, G. (in press). Understanding and enhancing the use of multiple
external representations in chemistry education. Journal of Science Education and
Technology. Online First. doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-9366-z
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(9), 949–968.
Machiels-Bongaerts, M., & Schmidt, H. G. (1995). The relation between the nature of prior
knowledge activated and information processing: To elaborate or to infer? Paper presented at
The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA).
Recht, D. R. & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(1), 16-20.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations.
Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple
representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, L. T. (2002). Students' understanding of the role of
scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 357-368.