Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Drawing for Promoting Learning and Engagement with Dynamic Visualizations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Learning from Dynamic Visualization

Abstract

In recent years multiple design frameworks have been proposed to improve student learning with dynamic visualizations in science classrooms. These design frameworks commonly argue for including learning activities that promote student engagement and learning through animations or simulations of scientific phenomena. This chapter reviews the underlying mechanisms by which drawing activities might offer unique benefits for promoting science learning when coupled with dynamic visualizations in innovative design frameworks. The chapter also considers the potential of drawing as an activity to increase student engagement with the epistemic practices in science to promote deep learning and interest. These two roles for drawing are illustrated by example activities of The Connected Chemistry Curriculum, a technology-infused curriculum that emphasizes drawing with molecular-level simulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ainsworth, S. E., & Iacovides, I. (2005). Learning by constructing self-explanation diagrams. Paper presented at the 11th EARLI Conference, Munich, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/sea/earli2005/ainsworth_abstract.pdf

  • Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 609–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37, 345–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Röder, H., Knörzer, D., Kessler, W., & Renkl, A. (2011). The double-edged effects of explanation prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton, L. A., & Wandersee, J. H. (1997). Cutting up text to make moveable, magnetic diagrams: A way of teaching and assessing biological processes. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 288–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94, 73–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christian, W., & Titus, A. (1998). Developing web-based curricula using Java physlets. Computers in Physics, 12, 227–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, T.L., Bonsignore, E., Yip, J. C., Gelderblom, H., Kuhn, A., Valenstein, T. & Druin, A. (2012). Technology for promoting scientific practice and personal meaning in life-relevant learning. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC’12) (pp. 152–161). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M. M., Groves, N. P., Pargas, R., Bryfczynski, S. P., & Gatlin, T. (2009). OrganicPad: An interactive freehand drawing application for drawing Lewis structures and the development of skills in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 296–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, J. G., Bergey, B. W., Fitzhugh, S. L., Newcombe, N., Wills, T. W., Shipley, T. F., & Tanaka, J. C. (2013). Effects of three diagram instruction methods on transfer of diagram comprehension skills: The critical role of inference while learning. Learning and Instruction, 26, 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalebroux, A., Goldstein, T. R., & Winner, E. (2008). Short-term mood repair through art-making: Positive emotion is more effective than venting. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 288–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., & Janssens, D. (1998). The predominance of the linear model in secondary school students’ solutions of word problems involving length and area of similar plane figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Koning, B. B., & Jarodzka, H. (2017). Attention guidance strategies for supporting learning from dynamic visualizations. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization – Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • De Petrillo, L., & Winner, E. (2005). Does art improve mood? A test of a key assumption underlying art therapy. Art Therapy, 22, 205–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. (2005). Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. (2000). A typology of models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 937–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. (2005). The effects of different learning tasks on conceptual understanding in science: Teasing out representational modality of diagramming versus explaining. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 444–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gooding, D. (2004). Visualization, inference and explanation in the sciences. In G. Malcolm (Ed.), Studies in multidisciplinarity (Vol. 2, pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 393–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, D., Symington, D., & Martin, M. (1994). Drawing during science activity in the primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. (2004). An introduction to the profound potential of connected algebra activities: Issues of representation, engagement and pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 129–136). Toronto: OISE/UT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jee, B. D., Gentner, D., Forbus, K., Sageman, B., & Uttal, D. H. (2009). Drawing on experience: Use of sketching to evaluate knowledge of spatial scientific concepts. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2499–2504). Amsterdam: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. K., & Reynolds, S. J. (2005). Concept sketches – Using student- and instructor-generated, annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, R. M., & Jones, L. L. (2007). Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’ explanations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 413–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (2003). Material and social affordances of multiple representations for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 105–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 284–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, D., & Schmeck, A. (2014). The generative drawing principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 433–448). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (2010). How can selection and drawing support learning from dynamic visualizations. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 1, pp. 165–166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2017). A composition approach to design of educational animations. In R. Lowe, & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization – Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R., & Mason, L. (2017). Self-generated drawing: A help or hindrance to learning from animation? In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization – Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R., & Schnotz, W. (Eds.). (2008). Learning with animation: Research implications for design. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., Lowe, R., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). Self-generated drawings for supporting comprehension of a complex animation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, M. B., & Brown, J. R. (2005). Visual learning for science and engineering. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 25, 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newman (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., Milne, C., Homer, B. D., Jordan, T., Schwartz, R. N., Hayward, E. O., & Barrientos, J. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 394–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ploetzner, R., & Breyer, B. (2017). Strategies for learning from animation with and without narration. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization – Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ploetzner, R., & Fillisch, B. (2017). Not the silver bullet: Learner-generated drawings make it difficulty to understand broader spatiotemporal structures in complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 47, 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2751–2773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasco, R. W., Tennyson, R. D., & Boutwell, R. C. (1975). Imagery instructions and drawings in learning prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 188–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, T. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Schechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 833–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, S., Yip, J., Stieff, M., & Druin, A. (2013). Cooperative inquiry as a community of practice. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 145–148). Madison, WI: International Society for the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 872–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snowman, J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1975). A comparison of pictorial and written adjunct aids in learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 307–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M., & Power, B. (1996). Putting art on the scientist’s palette. In R. S. Hubbard & K. Ernst (Eds.), New entries: Learning by writing and drawing (pp. 59–68). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M. (2005). Connected chemistry – A novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 489–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M. (2011a). Fostering representational competence through argumentation with multi-representational displays. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (Vol. 1, pp. 288–295). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M. (2011b). Improving representational competence using multi-representational learning environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1137–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M., Bateman, R., & Uttal, D. H. (2005). Teaching and learning with three-dimensional representations. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 93–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M., & McCombs, M. (2006). Increasing representational fluency with visualization tools. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol.1, pp. 730–736). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M., Nighelli, T., Yip, J., Ryan, S., & Berry, A. (2012). The connected chemistry curriculum (Vols. 1–9). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected Chemistry – incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 12, 285–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tai, R., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., & Firetto, C. M. (2013). Cognitive model of drawing construction: Learning through the construction of drawings. In G. Schraw, M. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 247–280). Scottsdale, AZ: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H.-k., & Huang, Y.-L. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Science Education, 91, 727–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H.-k., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting conceptual understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H. Z., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1177–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DRL-1102349). Any opinions, findings, or conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of these agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Illinois, Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mike Stieff

Authors
  1. Mike Stieff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Stieff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Curtin University School of Education, Bentley, West Australia, Australia

    Richard Lowe

  2. University of Education, Freiburg, Germany

    Rolf Ploetzner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stieff, M. (2017). Drawing for Promoting Learning and Engagement with Dynamic Visualizations. In: Lowe, R., Ploetzner, R. (eds) Learning from Dynamic Visualization. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56204-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56204-9_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56202-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56204-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation