Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2006.26.1.9

The Effects of Drawing and Analyzing Pictures in Concept Learning of the Particulate Nature of Matter: A Comparison Based on Student Visual Learning Style  

Han, Jae-Yeong (Chungbuk National University)
Lee, Ji-Young (Doonchon Middle School)
Kwack, Jin-Ha (Seoul National University)
Noh, Tae-Hee (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.26, no.1, 2006 , pp. 9-15 More about this Journal
Abstract
Students have often experienced difficulties in understanding the concept of the particulate nature of matter despite its importance in chemistry. Although various instructional methods have been suggested for teaching this concept, systematic studies have been rarely conducted. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of drawing and analyzing pictures. Three classes of 7th graders at a coed middle school in Seoul were assigned to the control group, the drawing group, and the analyzing group, respectively. Students were taught about the three states of matter and the motion of molecules for 8 class periods. The instructional effects on student conception, achievement, and science learning motivation were investigated by student visual learning styles. Results revealed that the scores of a conceptions test and a science learning motivation test for both the drawing group and the analyzing group were higher than those for the control group. Additionally, the scores of the science learning motivation test were also found to be higher for students with a more visual learning style than their counterparts.
Keywords
particulate nature of matter; drawing; analyzing pictures; visual learning style;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 유승아, 구인선, 김봉곤, 강대호 (1999). 기체의 성질에 대한 중, 고등학생들의 오개념에 관한 연구, 대한화학회지, 43(5), 564-577
2 Dunn, R, Griggs, S. A, Olson, J., Beasley, M, & Gorman, B. S. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-362   ScienceOn
3 Edens, K M, & Potter, E. F (2003). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 135-144   ScienceOn
4 Glynn, S. (1997). Drawing mental models. The Science Teacher, 64(1), 30-32
5 Hall, V. C., Bailey, J., & Tillman, C. (1997). Can student-generated illustrations be worth ten thousand words- Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 677-681
6 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), 199-217
7 Snowman, J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1975). A comparison of pictorial and written adjunct aids in learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 307-311
8 Trend, R., Everett, L., & Dove, J. (2000). Interpreting primary children's representations of mountains and mountainous landscapes and environments. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18(1), 85-112   ScienceOn
9 White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer
10 Lin, H., Cheng, H., & Lawrenz, F. (2000). The assessment of students and teachers' understanding of gas laws. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 235-238   ScienceOn
11 Keller, J. M., & Subhiyah, R. (1993). Course interest survey. Florida State University
12 De Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science education and in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 657-664   ScienceOn
13 Wu, H-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465-492   ScienceOn
14 노태희, 유지연, 한재영 (2003). 분자 수준에서의 그림 그리기를 활용한 수업의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 23(6), 609-616
15 Hair, J. F, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. NJ Prentice-Hall
16 Jonassen, O. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum
17 Keller, J. M. (1993). IMMS: Instructional material motivation survey. Florida State University
18 Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726
19 Quinn, R. (1994). The New York State compact for learning and learning styles. Learning Styles Network Newsletter, 15(1), 1-2
20 Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Schrader, C. (1987). The particle nature of matter approach: Its effectiveness on chemistry achievement. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Washington, DC
21 Kirby, J. R., Moore, P. J., & Schofield, N. J. (1988). Verbal and visual learning styles. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(2), 169-184
22 Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129-140
23 Stein, M., McNair, S., & Butcher, J. (2001). Drawing on student understanding: Using illustrations to invoke deeper thinking about animals. Science and Children, 38(4), 18-22
24 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   ScienceOn
25 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), 39-53
26 Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaxer (Ed.) Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 253-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum