Effective Use of Multiple Representations by Novices in Learning Chemistry
David Corradi
Jan Elen
Geraldine Clarebout
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Abstract
Theories on learning with multiple external representations (MER) claim that novices in
science have difficulties using MER (e.g., Ainsworth, 2006). Nevertheless such MER are
argued to be essential to understand scientific concepts. In contrast, some research does find
that novices can use specific combinations of representations for learning (e.g., Carney &
Levin, 2002). In this study we investigate the effect of MER on novices’ learning gains in
chemistry. Undergraduates (n=67) participated in a pre-post randomized experiment.
Participants read texts, that were – depending on the condition – accompanied with symbols
and/or pictures. Result found no significant differences in learning gains. Combining symbols
and/or submicroscopic representations with text does not help novices learning with MER.
Aims
Understanding scientific concepts entails the ability to recognize and switch between multiple
external representations (MER) of that concept (e.g., Rappaport & Ashkenazi, 2008). We
focus here on texts, symbols (both descriptive representations) and submicroscopic
representations (depictive representations). Symbolic representations are part of the
systematic language of chemistry that communicates for example the composition of matter.
1
Submicroscopic representations provide information at the level of invisible and untouchable
particles (Johnstone, 2006).
Comparisons between novice students and more knowledgeable students show that
novices tend to have difficulties understanding and translating between MER (e.g., Seufert,
2003). If learning with MER is to be successful, research concludes, prior knowledge of the
domain and its representations is required (Ainsworth, 2006). However, other research found
successful use of MER with novices. The main difference was that text was the main
representation and other descriptive and depictive representations (illustrations) had a
supportive function (e.g., Levie & Lentz, 1982).
We want to know whether combining symbolic and submicroscopic representations
with texts of chemistry increases the level of conceptual understanding for novices (i.e.,
chemical literacy; Shwartz, Ben-zvi & Hofstein, 2006). Adding representations to texts has a
positive effect for novices on learning because it supports memory, guides attention,
organizes information and structures learning behavior (e.g., Carney & Levin, 2002).
Additionally, combining descriptive and depictive representations benefits learning since both
are processed differently. Depictions interact with the picture’s internal perception and the
prior knowledge of the subject matter. A description’s surface structure is first mentally
represented. Its semantic content then generates a propositional representation. That
representation is formed into a mental model (Schotz & Bannert, 2003).
Therefore we think that learner’s chemical literacy increases significantly more when
learning with texts, symbols and submicroscopic representations compared to when learning
with only texts or with text and either a symbolic or a submicroscopic representation.
Methods
Participants
2
Participants were sixty seven undergraduates. 7% were male. Mean age was 18.61 (sd= 0.91).
Design
In a pre-post randomized experiment, participants were distributed over four groups.
Group 1 (n=16) received texts about basic chemical concepts. Group 2 (n=17) received
symbolic, group 3 (n=17) submicroscopic representations and group 4 (n=17) got both
symbolic and submicroscopic representations about each concept (always with text;
representations: Lagassé, 2007).
Instruments and procedure
Pre and post-tests were chemical literacy tests. One instrument in each test assessed
recognition of chemical concepts (nominal literacy; self-report) and the second one the ability
to correctly describe concepts (functional literacy; open questions) (Shwartz, Ben-Zvi, &
Hofstein, 2006). The nominal literacy pre-test had Cronbach α =.89; post-test: α =.91. Coders
scored the functional literacy test. Inter-rater agreement (kappa) scores for all tests were
between .60 and .90. Coders compromised on the scores they did not agree on. Pre and posttest lasted 10 minutes each. The intervention was the assignment to read five texts (206 words
average) on a computer. Only one representation was shown at the time and actions were
logged. We used an ANOVA to measure difference in learning gains (posttest minus pretest
results).
Results
Pre-test ANOVA did not find a difference between the conditions, F(3,63)= 0.069,
p>.05, partial η² = 0.003 (i.e., successful randomization). Our hypothesis was that the
condition with three representations per concept would have more learning gains compared to
the other groups. Table 1 shows a higher mean for group 4. The ANOVA reveals no
3
significant differences between the four conditions, F(3, 63) = 0.949, p= .42, partial η² = .043.
Hence, our hypothesis that MER help learning is falsified. There is also no evidence that
using MER negatively affects learning.
Table 1
Means and SD for learning gains (%).
conditions
Mean
text + image + symbol
SD
10.73
14.72
text + image
7.90
12.62
text + symbol
6.56
11.77
text
3.09
13.63
Discussion
That we found no significant difference between the groups can mean two things.
First, combining text with other representations does not help novices more than when text is
given without representations. Participants had low prior knowledge and this may have
limited them in using the representations (Ainsworth, 2006). Second, even though some state
that MER may cause negative learning gains (e.g., Schnotz & Bannert, 2003), using text
combined with other representations does not lead to negative learning gains here. Based on
these results we assume that representations had either a decorative function for learners (i.e.,
redundant) (Winn, 1993) or were ill conceived.
The value of these results is that it has shed light on an ambiguity of the literature
concerning novice learning with MER. Conceptual understanding did not increase more than
just with text. Hence, combining text with other representations does not seem to help novices
make connections between them.
4
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple
representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning
from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.
Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 49–63.
Lagassé, P. (Ed.). (2007). The Columbia Encyclopedia. NY: Columbia University Press.
Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research source.
Educational Communication and Technology, 30(4), 195–232.
Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation: Emergent
versus submergent perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12),
1585–1603.
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.
Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006). The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for
assessing the development of chemical literacy among high-school students.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(4), 203–225.
Winn, W. (1993). Perception principles. In M. Fleming & W. H. Levie (Eds.), Instructional
Message Design (pp. 55–126). NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
5