Abstract
External representations are often used to explain complex scientific concepts. These representations can augment learning outcomes to include the ability to engage in highly cognitive tasks, such as creating novel solutions to scientific problems. Nevertheless, interpreting these representations can be cognitively demanding for learners with low levels of representational competence especially those unfamiliar with the learning context. Moreover, the representational competence of an individual learner can change depending on the difficulty of a given task. Therefore, assessment practices that (1) differentiate among learners of different levels of representational competence as well as (2) gauge its change along tasks with hierarchical difficulty can be quite informative for designing instruction with external representations. In this chapter, we provide an example for how assessment can be designed to meet the two objectives. Given that representational competence is context specific, we demonstrate how the first objective can be met through developing a valid and reliable assessment instrument that can discriminate between learners of related but different majors. To satisfy the second objective, we suggest utilizing a continuum of problems based on the hierarchical cognitive orders in revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Potential benefits of such practices are discussed based on a case study that included 111 college students from three different institutes. Holistic and Item psychometric analyses are also detailed to further elucidate how failure in instructional intervention can result from lack of representational competence that, if not accounted for, efforts of redesign may prove fruitless.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A distractor is a multiple choice answer meant to distract a test taker from the correct answer.
References
Aiken, L. R. (2003). Psychological testing and assessment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airiasian, W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational outcomes: Complete edition.
Barnea, N., & Yehudit, J. D. (2000). Computerized molecular modeling-the new technology for enhancing model perception among chemistry educators and learners. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 109–120.
Brennan, R. L. (1972). A generalized upper-lower item discrimination index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 289–303.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2004). Language assessment. Principles and Classroom Practices. White Plains: Pearson Education.
Chang, M., Hwang, W. Y., Chen, M. P., & Mueller, W. (Eds.). (2011). Edutainment technologies. Educational games and virtual reality/Augmented reality applications: 6th International Conference on E-learning and Games, Edutainment 2011, Taipei, Taiwan, September 7–9, 2011, Proceedings (Vol. 6872). Springer.
Dacosta, B. (2008). The effect of cognitive aging on multimedia learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida).
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234.
Doran, R. L. (1980). Basic measurement and evaluation of science instruction. National Science Teachers Association, 1742 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009 (Stock No. 471–14764; no price quoted).
Griffard, P. B. (2013). Deconstructing and decoding complex process diagrams in university biology. In Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 165–183). Netherlands: Springer.
Halverson, K. L., & Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Learning tree thinking: Developing a new framework of representational competence. In Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 185–201). Netherlands: Springer.
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134.
Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539.
Klahr, D., & Robinson, M. (1981). Formal assessment of problem-solving and planning processes in preschool children. Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 113–148.
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.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Madrid, R. I., Van Oostendorp, H., & Melguizo, M. C. P. (2009). The effects of the number of links and navigation support on cognitive load and learning with hypertext: The mediating role of reading order. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 66–75.
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(3), 147.
Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 99–113.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 61–86.
Schönborn, K. J., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Experts views on translation across multiple external representations. In Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 111–128). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.
Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C. Y. (Eds.). (2013). Multiple representations in biological education. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Treagust, D., & Tsui, C. (2014). General instructional methods and strategies. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (1st ed., p. 312). New York: Routledge.
Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.
Van Merriënboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.
Van Merriënboer, J. J., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 343–352.
Zhao, N., Wardeska, J. G., McGuire, S. Y., & Cook, E. (2014). Metacognition: An effective tool to promote success in college science teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(4), 48–54.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Saleh, M.R., Daniel, K.L. (2018). Leveraging on Assessment of Representational Competence to Improve Instruction with External Representations. In: Daniel, K. (eds) Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89943-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89945-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)