You are here:

Embedding Annotation in Abstract/Concrete Visual Representations to Facilitate Students’ Knowledge Acquisition, Transfer and Self-Efficacy in Physics Education
PROCEEDING

, University of Utah, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Washington, D.C., United States ISBN 978-1-939797-32-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of abstract/concrete visual representations in physics education by embedding annotation to support learners’ learning. Participants (N=108) were recruited from a subject pool in the college of education in a research I university. A 2 x 2 design was used with visuals and annotation as independent variables and comprehension, transfer and self-efficacy scores as dependent variables. The results showed a superior effect for annotation with visuals as in both learner performance and self-efficacy. Discussions on the implications of the findings and future studies were made.

Citation

Zheng, R. (2018). Embedding Annotation in Abstract/Concrete Visual Representations to Facilitate Students’ Knowledge Acquisition, Transfer and Self-Efficacy in Physics Education. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1959-1969). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

© 2018 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Banaschewski, T., & Brandeis, D. (2007). What electrical brain activity tells us about brain function that other techniques cannot tell us-a child psychiatric perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(5), 415435.
  2. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
  3. Bleicher, R.E. & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in science learning and preservice science teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 205–225.
  4. Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445459.
  5. Conrad, S., Clarke-Midura, J., & Klopfer, E. (2014). A framework for structuring learning assessment in an online educational game: Experiment centered design. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 4(1), 37Crisp, V., & Sweiry, E. (2006). Can a picture ruin a thousand words? The effects of visual resources in exam questions. Educational Research, 48(2), 139-154.
  6. De Bock, D., Deprez, J., van Dooren, W., Roelens, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2011). Learning mathematics? A replication and elaboration of Kaminski, Sloutsky, and Heckler’s study. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 109-126.
  7. Efendioglu, A. (2016). How do the cognitive load, self-efficacy and attitude of pre-service teachers shift in the multimedia science learning process? Educational Research and Reviews, 11(8), 743-764.
  8. Gibson, D., & Clarke-Midura, J. (2013). Some psychometric and design implications of game-based learning analytics. Paper presented at the International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS) International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age (CELDA). Fort Worth, TX.
  9. Heinrich, H., Gevensleben, H., & Strehl, U. (2007). Neurofeedback-train your brain to train behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(1), 3-16.
  10. Hushman, C.J., & Marley, S.C. (2015). Guided instruction improves elementary student learning and self-efficacy in science. Journal of Educational Research, 108(5), 371-381.
  11. Hwang, W.Y., Chen, N.S., Shadiev, R., & Li, J.S. (2011). Effects of reviewing annotations and homework solutions on math learning achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1016-1028.
  12. Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers' self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175-192.
  13. Lodewyk, K.R. & Winne, P.H. (2005). Relations among the structure of learning tasks, achievement, and changes in self-efficacy in secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 3–12.
  14. Madsen, A., Rouinfar, A., Larson, A.M., Loschky, L.C., & Rebello, N.S. (2013). Can short duration visual cues influence students’ reasoning and eye movements in physics problems? Physics Education Research, 9(2), p0201041-020104-16.
  15. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M.C., & Ariasi, N. (2013). An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 356-384.
  16. Moreno, R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concret and abstract visual representations: Effects on students’ problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 32-47.
  17. Nakamura, C.M., Murphy, S.K., & Christel, M.G. (2016). Automated analysis of short responses in an interactive synthetic tutoring system for introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010122-1-010122-16.
  18. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  19. Reddan, G. (2016). The role of work-integrated learning in developing students' perceived work self-efficacy. AsiaPacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 423-436.
  20. Samuel, R.D., Kim, C., & Johnson, T.E. (2011). A study of a social annotation modeling learning system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(1), 117-137.
  21. Tippett, C.D. (2016). What recent research on diagrams suggests about learning "with" rather than learning "from" visual representations in science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 725-746.
  22. Vander Meij, H., & Harmsen, R. (2015). Animated pedagogical agents effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 381403.
  23. Wallen, E., Plass, J., & Brunken, R. (2005). The function of annotations in the comprehension of scientific texts: Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 59-72.
  24. Zheng, R., McAlack, M., Wilmes, B., Kohler-Evans, P., & Williamson, J. (2009). Effects of multimedia on cognitive load, self-efficacy, and multiple rule-based problem solving. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 790-803.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts