Promotion of Spatial Skills in Chemistry and Biochemistry Education at

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Promotion of Spatial Skills in Chemistry and Biochemistry Education at the College Level Maria Oliver-Hoyo* and Melissa A. Babilonia-Rosa Chemistry Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27895, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Decades of research have demonstrated the correlation of spatial abilities to chemistry achievement and career selection. Nonetheless, reviews have highlighted the need and scarcity of explicit spatial instruction to promote spatial skills. Therefore, the goal of this literature review is to summarize what has been done during the past decade in chemistry and biochemistry education to promote spatial skills at the college level. In this review, we compare and contrast how these fields of study have used external representations and visualization tools in their instructional practices as well as the kinds of interventions and assessment efforts directed to promote and evaluate spatial skills. Our findings show that explicit instruction to promote spatial skills has been on the rise but not at the level of other cognitive skills. Therefore, implications for teaching and potential areas for investigation are suggested. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Chemical Education Research, Biochemistry FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

■

SCOPE

It is worth noting that the terminology found throughout the literature reviewed can be confusing as terms are not defined or used in a consistent manner. For example, we found the terms spatial ability and spatial skills used interchangeably as spatial ability has been defined in terms of “skill” and in terms of “ability”. Linn and Petersen state that “spatial ability generally refers to skill in representing, transforming, generating, and recalling symbolic, nonlinguistic information”,14 while others give a circular definition referring to spatial ability as the “ability to represent and process spatial information”.15 To alleviate confusion, we refer to the terminology as we found it used by authors from each publication cited in this review. In addition, we provide a summary of spatial terminology in the Supporting Information (Table S1).

Spatial abilities and their impact in chemistry education have received continued attention for decades1−4 due to the spatial nature of molecules and their representations and to the central role visual imagery plays when understanding molecular interactions. These discipline-based visual demands naturally extend to biochemistry education where the complexity of molecular representations and their interactions are particularly challenging for students.5−7 Two reviews specifically focusing on chemistry instruction point at the critical role these abilities play in chemistry education.8,9 These reviews strongly suggest that explicit spatial instruction is essential since a lack of spatial abilities hinders conceptual understanding, which in turn affects chemistry achievement. In addition to the positive correlation between science achievement and spatial abilities so far reported,1,2,10−12 longitudinal studies have demonstrated that spatial abilities are related to occupational choice.13 For these reasons, the focus of this literature review is to summarize what has been done in chemistry and biochemistry education to promote spatial skills at the college level. We searched three databases (ERIC, SciFinder, and Web of Science) using keywords such as “spatial ability”, “spatial skills”, “representational competence”, “visual literacy”, and “visualization”. The word “education” was added to our keywords in SciFinder and Web of Science to refine the searches, as most of our initial hits did not pertain to education. On the other hand, the terms chemistry and biochemistry were used to re-direct the search towards these specific fields. Special attention in paper selection was given to articles that attempted to provide or provided evidence of spatial training effects. Therefore, papers showcasing an activity, intervention, or visualization tool without evaluation were not necessarily included. The main goal of this review is to highlight significant contributions made to the promotion of spatial skills at the college level in chemistry and biochemistry education over the past decade. © 2017 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

■

INTRODUCTION

As early as 1927, Spearman described spatial abilities as “broad enough to include a sphere of mental operations” possibly acquired by training or habit and viewed as a factor of intelligence.16 In 1979 correlational studies were re-analyzed due to substantial differences between the factors identified up to this moment, the lack of uniform terminology, and the variability of spatial ability tests used to identify said factors.17 This variability included differences in format, administration procedures, measured variables, and occlusion by analytic problem solving skills. Through the decades, spatial abilities factors have been discussed and classified,17,18 and a summary of the most prominent factors identified has been presented by Harle and Towns (see Table 1).9 Received: February 2, 2017 Revised: June 15, 2017 Published: July 13, 2017 996

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00094 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 996−1006

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 1. Factors of Spatial Abilitiesa Factor Spatial relations Spatial orientation Spatial visualization

Closure speed Flexibility of closure Perceptual speed a

chemistry education at the college level. However, significant disciplinary differences highlighted by this review span from the terminology used and the nature of the representations themselves, to the approaches and practices common to each discipline. Therefore, we segregate this literature review by discipline for readability and organizational flow.

Description Ability to mentally rotate an object within a plane (two dimensions or 2D) or out of a plane (3D) Ability to imagine how an object looks from a different perspective Ability to perform complex tasks including movement or displacement of parts relative to other parts, combination of different figures, or multiple transformations Identify a partially obscured object without knowing the identity of the object in advance Disembed a figure or pattern within a larger or complex figure Speed at finding a unique item within a group, a specific visual pattern in a visual field, or for accurately comparing one or more patterns

■

BIOCHEMISTRY EDUCATION

Visual Literacy and the Use of Representations in Biochemistry Education

In biochemistry, external representations (ERs) such as the ones depicted in Figure 1 are used to convey 3D information about structure/function relationships of proteins and nucleic acids as well as overall protein folds and reactions in the active site of enzymes. As a result, biochemistry education researchers have acknowledged the critical nature of visual literacy for biochemistry understanding. Visual literacy is commonly described as the ability to interpret, create, and construct meaning from ERs which includes the ability to judge the accuracy and validity of representations.34,35 It is widely accepted in many disciplines that more than one ER is needed to understand phenomena since each representation highlights different information.8,36−38 Therefore, translation between representations is essential for understanding but, unfortunately, troublesome for biochemistry students. 7,34 The components that hinder a student’s visual literacy include reasoning abilities, conceptual understanding, and the mode or nature of the ER as well as failure to apply these in combination.39 Schönborn and Anderson guidelines to improve visual literacy heavily emphasize the conceptual and reasoning skills needed to interpret ERs34 but also identify spatial manipulation of representations and visualization of size and scale as integral parts in understanding biochemical phenomena.6 These guidelines were used by Linenberger and Holme to appraise biochemistry instructors’ views on visual literacy. The spatial manipulation factor was found to score significantly lower than the neutral response, while relative size and scale factor “attracted the least attention” from instructors.33 Harle and Towns suggest instructors should explicitly decode unfamiliar representations because without prior knowledge it is difficult for students to determine in which areas of the representation to focus on.7 We argue that in order to promote visual literacy, explicit instruction on visual spatial skills is critical to interpret different features in different types of ERs. This sentiment is voiced by others from the theoretical treatment of visual models40 to the practical approach of Dries et al., whose framework to promote visual literacy in the

Adapted from Harle and Towns; see ref 9

Recognition of the relevance of such factors permeates throughout the educational psychology literature as longitudinal studies have revealed the critical role spatial abilities play in developing expertise in STEM fields13 where this role is distinct from mathematical and verbal abilities.19,20 A higher level of spatial ability correlates to the likelihood of earning a Master or Ph.D. degree in STEM fields,13 and to publication records in STEM or patent acquisitions.21 More recently, meta-analysis studies in psychology education point to the malleability, durability, and transferability of spatial training.22,23 Findings from educational psychology are also reflected in other technical fields such as engineering24 where Sorby pioneered in the 1990s the development and empirical validation of spatial training in engineering education.25 Instructional materials specifically designed for training on spatial skills include spatial practice problems and software modules on topics such as isometric sketching, pattern folding, surfaces (orthographic, inclined, and curved) and object rotation, scaling, reflection, and symmetry.26−29 Training with these materials and standardized testing have revealed an increase on spatial skills for engineering students,29−31 nonengineering majors,29 and highly gifted STEM undergraduates.32 Unfortunately, explicit instruction on spatial skills is often unrecognized as an area that requires special attention; instead, instructors assume students will automatically acquire these skills.4,9,33 Since biochemistry is a fundamental course in most chemistry curricula and most biochemistry majors have to take a number of chemistry courses, this review aims to highlight how spatial instruction is addressed in biochemistry and

Figure 1. External representations of bovine trypsin. (A) Ribbon representation showing the N-terminus in blue and the C-terminus in red. (B) Vine or stick representation showing amino acid side chains colored by element. (C) Hydrophobicity coloring scheme (blue is hydrophilic and orange is hydrophobic). PDB ID 2AGI. 997



Article

classroom includes a list of explicit learning goals.41 From the learning objectives provided, it is noticeable the heavy focus on conceptual understanding; however, it is recognized that translation between equivalent 2D and 3D representations is crucial across expertise levels. Findings in other educational fields pertaining to spatial abilities1,2,13 are accepted in biochemistry education such as gender differences42 and spatial abilities as a predictor of academic success.43 However, we found no studies in biochemistry education correlating higher spatial ability with higher performance. Forbes-Lorman and co-workers identified a gender effect when quiz scores significantly improved for female students after instruction with 3D physical models of a protein.42 The spatial component was identified in the learning objectives of an intervention to incorporate visualization tools (physical and computer models) during instruction, but results have not been forthcoming.43 These remain fertile areas for biochemistry education researchers to explore and contribute to the understanding of visual literacy.

learning gains than those provided by the use of physical models or computer visualization programs alone due to a deeper sensorial interaction. Simple, inexpensive, and readily available objects have also been used as visual literacy tools. As original examples we can mention the use of pipe cleaners to represent chromosomes to enact the Holiday junction,67 and the use of clothespins to represent tRNAs in conjunction with small binder clips representing amino acids to study protein translation.68 It has been shown that students perform better with the combination of physical models and molecular graphics tools and that students prefer to manipulate physical models.43 However, despite the use of physical models, visualization software, and animations in biochemistry education, experimental data are not available regarding which tool(s) are more effective at promoting spatial skills.

■

INTERVENTIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL LITERACY Our literature search focused on finding activities, interventions, or other instructional resources that validated or measured the effect of spatial abilities on improving visual literacy. The majority of the studies in our search focused on performance gains in conceptual understanding42,53,55,56,61,68−70 without assessing the role that spatial skills play in achieving such understanding. We found one study that used scores from a validated spatial tool to establish treatment and control as comparable groups.43 A very different view on spatial skills is the metabolic pathways visualization skill test (MPVST) developed by dos Santos and Galembeck.71 In this test, the identification of different forms of representations, stages of a metabolic pathway, specific enzymes, and final products of a pathway are presented as “visual skills”. It is not uncommon that spatial skills, as described in terms of manipulations of objects in space and perspectives, are often neglected. Some approaches have great potential to study more deeply the role spatial skills play on visual literacy. For example, one approach involved students physically dissecting 3D models (rather than model-building) where it was shown that “dissection” of a 3D DNA model was efficient in promoting understanding of the DNA structure as it “encourages focused interaction with the model”.70 Another promising approach is the use of drawings.72,73 It has been shown that studentgenerated drawings probe molecular level understanding at sufficient depth to correlate with students’ understanding of the ERs.73 A comprehensive and multifaceted framework for using drawing to advance visual literacy in biology education presents drawing of models as a “teachable science process skill”.74 Interventions described focused on providing students with the opportunities to practice translation between text and drawings and between drawings with consistent feedback and scaffold. Other studies pay close attention to students’ difficulties in comprehending and interpreting ERs5,39,62,75 which by nature involve spatial abilities. Students’ interviews have proven invaluable to uncover relevant information. For example, a validated interview protocol (3P-SIT) documented the nature of cognitive dissonance generated from exposing students to multiple representations.76 This interview protocol also revealed that most students describe enzyme−substrate interactions in terms of geometric and/or electronic complementarity, often forgetting the stereochemistry component.77 Interviews of students’ interpretation of an immunoglobulin G diagram led Schönborn and Anderson to identify

Visualization Tools Used in Biochemistry Instruction

With the development of new technologies, biochemistry education has turned to molecular visualization tools to communicate structural information on complex macromolecules. Molecular graphics tools for educational purposes in structural biology have been on the rise since the early 1990s. A prime example is the pioneering work of Richardson and Richardson on the development of kinetic images or “kinemages” using the Mage software.44 Kinemages have been employed to provide students the opportunity to work at their own pace with 3D interactive computer graphics.45,46 Since then, other 3D visualization programs have been developed such as RasMol,47 Jmol,48 Pymol49 (free for education purposes by Schrödinger www.pymol.org), Swiss-PDB viewer,50 protein explorer (a user-friendly version to replace RasMol and Chime),51 and Chimera.52 While visualization software in biochemistry instruction can complement other tools such as physical models,43,53,54 it is clear that its effectiveness depends on the interactivity level of the user with the software.55,56 Visualization software has been used to stimulate independent learning57,58 as well as in more traditional settings such as the laboratory.59 Additionally, improved interactivity with biorelated animations at the molecular level60 seems to positively affect a student’s performance regarding structure−function questions.61 It is also known that animation features that exhibit more variation (such as zooming in, change in position, and labels) are more likely to be noticed by students; therefore, there is a need to carefully choose animations that align its features to learning objectives.62 In 2013, Craig et al. conducted a survey among biochemistry instructors to identify their preferences for 3D visualization software.63 Challenges noted on the use of visualization software for instructional purposes included cost and vital technological support. These challenges are expected to remain relevant. In the uprise is the use of molecular graphics tools for “solid printing” or printing of 3D physical models. Printing services are becoming more readily available, and there is ongoing research on how to best use 3D physical models in structural biology education.64,65 A more advanced use of tactile exploration has been accomplished by integrating augmented reality interfaces to 3D physical models whose manipulation can be tracked by a video camera and displayed on a computer screen.66 This combination is expected to promote higher 998



Article

debatable, but there is no question they are a critical contributor. Like in biochemistry, chemistry students struggle translating between representations83,92−94 and this struggle permeates through the different subdisciplines in chemistry. Organic chemistry provides an example of a representation-rich domain; an informal revision of a popular organic chemistry textbook revealed that students are exposed to at least 10 spatial representations in their first organic chemistry course.95 Inorganic chemistry is also notorious for the use of spatial representations for topics such as symmetry and group theory.96 Furthermore, 33 years ago, Seddon et al. identified depth cues that are still depicted by visualization tools.97 These depth cues are shown in Figure 2A and represent distortion of

the mode of the ER as one of the core factors affecting students’ ability to accurately interpret representations.5,39 It is worth noting the complexity of measuring each component (reasoning, conceptual, or mode) separately as they exhibit interdependency. A list of cognitive skills necessary to connect these dimensions has been suggested for the identification and assessment of problem areas such as spatial manipulations.6,39

■

CHEMISTRY EDUCATION

Representational Competence and the Use of Representations in Chemistry Education

In chemistry, spatial information is also expressed through ERs that depict aspects of one or more of the dimensions chemists work with such as the macroscopic, microscopic, or symbolic realms.78−80 Analogous efforts have been made in biochemistry education to categorize ERs with the biochemistry tetrahedron and the taxonomy of ERs.81 Chemistry experts translate efficiently between these realms while students struggle most with the microscopic and symbolic realms.82 Kozma and Russell noticed that chemistry experts are efficient at translating between equivalent representations as well as clustering multiple representations (graphs, animations, equations, and short videos) when describing a concept83 and suggested the promotion of similar representational practices by students.84 Their observations of expert utilization of chemical representations led them to describe representational competence as a composite of abilities:83,84 • ability to translate between equivalent representations • ability to analyze features of a representation and use them to explain, infer, and/or predict chemical phenomena • ability to generate and/or select the appropriate representation for a task • ability to describe relationships between representations A related term, visuospatial skills, covers from “recognizing shades of color, light and dark areas, and identifying spatial features”4 to the “ability to generate and recognize drawings of molecules and symbols, and correctly reason with them”.9 This understanding when interpreting representations is emphasized in representational competence and relies on the abilities to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize data. Visuospatial skills are embedded in representational competence which is the term commonly used in the chemistry education literature while biochemistry educators use the term visual literacy. Spatial abilities are intrinsic to the acquisition of representational competence. It has been shown that spatial abilities are not significant for questions or problems that require rote memorization or the use of algorithms,1,85 but they are important for problem solving tasks in chemistry.86 Spatial abilities correlate positively with solving organic chemistry problems87 as they require manipulation of 2D representations of a molecule, completing a reaction, or outlining a multistep organic synthesis.1 Stieff and colleagues’ findings suggest that mental rotation is important for solving problems that involve asymmetric molecules.88 Novices start mainly using imagistic strategies (mental rotation, perspective taking, and spatial visualization) but can switch to analytic strategies (algorithms and heuristics) with a stronger adoption to change by students with lower spatial abilities.89 As a result, Stieff and colleagues suggest teaching analytic and imagistic strategies in order to model the interplay between these strategies.90,91 Whether spatial abilities are predominant in problem solving remains

Figure 2. Depth cues and spatial manipulations for suflur hexafluoride (SF6). (A) Impression of depth is created through manipulation of cues: distortion of angles cue refers to the perceived angle variation (even though in this case all are 90° angles); overlap cue refers to the extent of the overlapping between the balls (atoms) and sticks (bonds); and foreshortened line cue refers to the perception that bonds have different lengths. Sulfur is represented in gray, and the fluoride atoms are numbered 1−6. The X, Y, and Z axes are provided as frames of reference. (B) Figure 1A was rotated 90° or 270° along the Z axis. (C) Figure 1A was rotated 90° or 270° along the Y axis. (D) Figure 1A was rotated 90° or 270° along the X axis. (E) Reflection.

angles, overlap of lines and circles, and foreshortened lines referring to the perception that some lines are shorter. Tuckey et al. demonstrated that is difficult for students to track how spatial cues change as a molecule rotates about an axis or reflects through a plane98 (Figure 2). Thus, instructional guidelines to promote student utilization of multiple representations include choosing a representation that explicitly corresponds to the phenomena under study, having students use multiple representations in an investigative context, and engaging students in activities where they have to generate representations or coordinate features of multiple representations to explain findings.99 These principles have been incorporated in a computer-based environment that promotes representational competence at the high school level.100 999



Article

Figure 3. Multiple representations of (R)-2-pentanol.

Visualization Tools Used in Chemistry Instruction

tion animations with text or narration resulted in knowledge gains independent of the spatial ability level of the student.87 In agreement with findings from psychology education research,109 animations with narration increased content knowledge especially for students with high spatial ability.3,107 Similarly, students with high spatial ability benefited the most from animations than from static images as measured by content knowledge on organic chemistry reactions.108 The results led the authors to suggest that a minimum degree of spatial ability is necessary to take full advantage of animations. Additionally, instructors have been encouraged to incorporate student generation of storyboards with paper and pencil or computer animations (using the computer program ChemSense) because both result in similar content knowledge gains on chemical equilibrium and increased mental rotation skills.110 Lastly, the interactivity level of touch screen technology (such as iPad use) allows students to manipulate 2D projections of 3D molecular images promoting representational competence more efficiently than manipulation of paper-based 2D images.111 Virtual environments are a 3D representation of an abstract concept “allowing or compelling users to have a sense of being present in an environment other than the one they are actually in, and to interact with that environment”.112 Some of the assumed benefits of virtual environments are the development of spatial awareness and improvement on transfer of knowledge and skills.113 For example, the interactivity level of the virtual environment Virtual Water influenced conceptual understanding of phases and phase transitions and benefitted the most students with higher spatial abilities.114 More recently, the virtual environment Second Life has been reported useful when teaching general chemistry topics such as molecular angles in the VSEPR theory.115 In this virtual reality, students interact with the virtual environment, other students, and their instructors through an avatar to build 3D virtual objects (such as molecules) and manipulate objects (zooming in/out and rotations). After 6 weeks working with Second Life, students’ performance on molecule angle items of the VSEPR theory increased for students with poor spatial abilities when compared to the performance of students that used 2D images.116 However, as mental rotation ability measured with the Card Rotation Test (CRT)117 and the Purdue Visualizations of Rotations (ROT) test85 was not enhanced, authors recommend further research with prolonged treatment. Validated Instruments. Spatial tests are meant to measure spatial factors separately, minimize analytical processing (logic), and promote gestalt processing (manipulation of mental images, deconstruction or unpacking information, and restructuring of information/images into a whole).85,108 Several tests118 have been developed since the 1930s when the search for the factors of spatial abilities began, but evidence suggests that some test items have nonspatial or analytic nature;119 thus, the need for validation methods. The most commonly used test

Concrete Models (Physical Models). Recent research has reported on the use of concrete or physical models to improve representational competence.82,93,95,101,102 For example, Stull et al. observed that students who align physical models (ball and stick) with the target organic representation to be drawn translate more accurately between Newman, Fischer, and wedge and dash diagrams.93 These representations are depicted in Figure 3. This study suggests that model use supports or replaces difficult mental spatial processes, therefore the need to physically handle the models to achieve performance gains. This was also found to be the case with inorganic students studying symmetry concepts where models specifically designed to anchor visual frames of reference96 were utilized to instruct about symmetry operations and to uncover a student’s spatial struggles during help sessions.102 As a result, worksheets were developed prompting students to interact with the models in a systematic way to study problematic molecular orientations. It is known that physical models are not beneficial under all conditions and that systematic investigations are needed to determine how to best utilize them.103 Padalkar and Hegarty proposed an approach for the use of concrete models called model-based feedback where students check their accuracy in organic chemistry translation problems by matching the physical model to their drawn diagram of a Newman, Fischer, or wedge and dash representation.95 This approach involves explicit instruction on how to use the models effectively for translation tasks, and as a result, student performance in a posttest increased. Stieff et al. trained students on how to manipulate physical models to identify spatial relationships of multiple organic chemistry representations that included model construction, drawing, and translation between Newman, Fischer, and wedge and dash diagrams.101 Computer Dependent tools. Improvements similar to those from physical models have been found with computer modeling. Use of computer molecular software in conjunction with a web-based chemistry course was found to increase the ability to translate between molecular representations and provided more detail in students’ 3D drawings.104 Molecular modeling that allowed the exploration of structural parameters (bond angles, hybridizations, and dipole moments) increased geometric understanding after 25 min of software use.105 However, the ability to build physical models was not improved. Additionally, computer modeling use increased significantly students’ scores on stereochemistry questions when compared to scores of students using concrete models, 2D static representations, or no treatment.106 More data are necessary to determine if computer modeling is more effective than other visualization tools and under what circumstances. Spatial ability assessment has been used to determine if students with different spatial abilities can achieve conceptual gains from animations.3,87,107,108 For example, organic extrac1000



Article

in chemistry education studies is the ROT,85 a shortened version of the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test−Visualization of Rotations (PSVT-R),120 which was found least likely confounded by analytical processing.85 The ROT measures the spatial relation factor and requires mental operations of 2D objects with hidden sides from view to determine if an object was rotated to a natural axis or around more than one axis. Evidence for the reliability of the ROT has been reported and scores correlate with performance on questions that require problem solving or manipulation of 2D molecular representations.85 Recently, measurement of invariance demonstrated that the ROT measures the latent variable in the same way across groups (males vs females); thus, the ROT has been deemed valid to examine gender related gaps.121 The latest two modifications have been done on the original PSVT-R120 to replace the isometric objects (objects drawn with sides and lengths of equal proportion and common angle) which are often interpreted as 2D patterns instead of 3D objects. To prevent this problem, the isometric pictorials have been replaced with trimetric images (independent scale and angles for each of the three axes of space) giving the impression of a 3D projection. This new version measures spatial visualization ability as reliable as the original test, and interviews revealed that trimetric pictorials eliminated confusion on test items.122 The most recent modification replaced the isometric pictorials with 3D solid models producing only a marginal increase on students’ scores when compared to the original PSVT-R.123 Employed less commonly in chemistry education is the Vanderberg Mental Rotation Test (MRT) which uses blocks rotated along one or two axes to measure spatial visualization124,125 (later to be referred as the spatial relation factor).9 The MRT consistently provides gender differences that favor males,124,126 but the source of the differences has yet to be discovered.127 The latest instrument developed is the VisualPerceptual Chemistry Specific (VPCS) assessment tool which aims to fulfill the need to test depth cues (Figure 2A) on images more related to chemistry content and to expand the set of visual−perceptual skills tested.128 For example, the VPCS uses molecular drawings and crystal arrays instead of generic blocks when using depth cues to test spatial manipulation. Factor analysis revealed the VPCS tool measures three factors: general spatial skill, multiple viewpoints, and memory ability. Inclusion of a variety of spatial operations and the use of content-relevant visualization cues, make the VPCS an enhanced tool to facilitate correlation measurements involving visual spatial skills.

interventions.4,102,132 Carlisle et al. designed three guided activities for general chemistry students to promote understanding of spatial relationships within and between molecules.4 Their results strongly suggest the need of significant training in order to enhance spatial skills to a proficient level. Importantly, this is not the first study suggesting time and consistency as important factors when designing interventions to promote spatial skills.133 Training on topics such as molecular geometry and stereochemical classification were shown to promote translation from 2D to 3D representations for all but one of 29 students with initial low levels of spatial ability skills.132 In addition, a 10 week, inorganic content intervention promoted student decomposition of complex images, increased mental rotation ability as scored with the MRT, and enhanced visualperceptual skills as determined with the VPCS tool.102 The intervention consisted of weekly activities that increased in complexity through the semester scaffolding both content knowledge and spatial demands. Just like for students, professional development workshops increased teachers’ spatial abilities providing them with resources they may implement in their classrooms.134,135 An intervention program consisting of 4 hrs daily sessions over 3 weeks for two consecutive summers showed improvement on spatial abilities of high school and college teachers.134 It consisted of using molecular modeling software to manipulate molecules (view, rotate, and draw) as well as animations produced by others or created by participants. Interestingly, if teachers stopped using the visualization resources promoted on the workshop, their spatial ability level dropped to baseline (preworkshop level). Thus, spatial abilities increase with use but decreased when left unattended, a fact that needs to be factored in when designing professional development workshops. As compiled in previous literature reviews,2,8,9 spatial ability tests have a long-standing history of being used to demonstrate the importance of spatial abilities in chemistry performance and achievement. Due to the intertwined nature of spatial abilities and representational competence, this section only includes recent assessments that either measure spatial abilities or attempt to shed light on how to promote the development of spatial skills. Williamson and Jose used a battery of instruments to document significant changes of workshop participants’ (teachers’) spatial abilities that included intensive use of computer-generated images.134 Authors pointed out the malleability of spatial abilities as compared to content knowledge and attitudinal changes. Gains in MRT scores were used to document improvements on spatial abilities of students that either created animations or used storyboards to model equilibria.110 Schiltz administered the MRT and the VPCS as pre- and post-tests showing significant improvements in spatial abilities after a 10 week intervention in an inorganic course focusing in spatial operations.102 Instead of using spatial instruments to measure effects of a treatment, some researchers have used spatial tests scores to assign ability levels among participants87,116 or to specifically establish equivalency among treatment groups.106,108,115,129 For example, Supasorn et al. used the MRT to show significant differences in spatial abilities between male and female participants and then related spatial abilities scores to performance.87 On the other hand, Abraham et al. used ROT scores to establish equivalency among three treatment groups involving those who used computer-generated representations of molecules, physical models, or 2D molecular drawings.106

Interventions and Assessment of Representational Competence

Our findings indicate that explicit instruction to promote representational competence95,101,129−131 and spatial ability in particular4,102,132 is on the rise in chemistry education. For example, student understanding of organic chemistry topics such as steric and torsional strains, conformation, orbital geometry, and chirality improved significantly as a result of explicit instruction interpreting 3D computer displays in conjunction with 2D representations.130 It has also been suggested that spatial tasks (such as rotation and reflection) should be taught separately until students show mastery of each and consequently, in combination as required for more complex problems.131 We found three recent studies that sought to enhance the spatial ability level of college students during semester-long 1001



Article

Assessment efforts by researchers in both fields most commonly use interviews, drawings, and spatial instruments. For example, interviews93,111 and drawings93,104 have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of visualization tools at promoting representational competence. However, this review revealed that researchers in both fields have missed the opportunity to use drawings to promote spatial abilities such as Sorby has done with sketching activities of 3D objects from different perspectives.29 Biochemistry educators have used spatial instruments primarily to demonstrate equivalence between treatment groups.43 Chemistry educators go beyond group equivalence106,108,129 to study the correlation of spatial aptitude with chemistry performance,1,12,136 effects of spatial training102 or visualization tools,107,115,116 and gender differences in spatial abilities.3,85,87,110,116 Both fields would benefit from applying findings from other fields of study. For example, systematic and longitudinal efforts in engineering education have included the development of instructional materials and curricular interventions targeted at the promotion of spatial skills with significant results.25−32

Similarly, Karacop and Doymus used the ROT test to establish “spatial visualization” equivalency when investigating the effects of computer animations versus a jigsaw learning activity about chemical bonding.129 It is common for researchers to use instruments in combination. For example, Aldahmash and Abraham used the ROT and Find-A-Shape Puzzle (FASP) tests to establish equivalency between groups in a study that compared kinetic versus static visuals in learning organic reaction mechanisms.108 Keeney-Kennicutt and Merchant used the ROT to demonstrate group equivalence before treatment and the CRT to show spatial ability gains after three assignments were completed over 6 weeks with a virtual environment.115 Surprisingly, Merchant et al. assessed spatial ability gains with the ROT and CRT using the same virtual environment treatment but found no enhancement of spatial abilities.116 Further breakdown of the data assigning spatial levels among participants revealed that students with low CRT scores that received treatment outperformed the control group in the molecule angle items of a VSEPR theory test.

■

CONCLUSIONS

Implications for Teaching and Research

Comparing and Contrasting Biochemistry and Chemistry Education Fields

Even though it is recognized that spatial ability embraces a collection of skills, each involving different spatial processes, there is no consistency at describing and/or classifying these skills. Consequently, it is very challenging to compare and contrast the merits and results of different studies from diverse fields of study. This profoundly affects both teaching and research efforts, as explicit instruction to promote spatial skills would require instructional materials designed to target different types of spatial tasks and would demand different types of assessments. With these challenges in mind, the literature reveals instructional practices that have been shown to be effective at promoting spatial skills when using representations commonly found in biochemistry and chemistry instruction. Some of the implications for teaching include the following: (a) Since different representations have different attributes and limitations, it is necessary for students to become familiar with a variety of representations most commonly used in the particular field of study. However, representations need to be carefully chosen to correspond to the phenomena under study and explicitly described for students in terms of spatial tasks. (b) Spatial tasks should be introduced one at a time to promote mastery of each skill before exposing students to problems that combine them. (c) Engaging students in the use of representations seems to be a critical factor in promoting spatial skills. Activities found in this literature review that aim to fully engage students include students comparing and contrasting representations, generating their own representations, and spatially manipulating representations. (d) Students that physically handle concrete models perform better in spatial tasks. Evidence suggests that the use of models is critical as it may support, complement, or replace demanding mental spatial processes. (e) Analytic strategies (i.e., algorithms and heuristics) should be taught in combination with imagistic strategies (i.e., mental rotation and perspective) because analytic strategies can only be applied effectively if students have a spatial understanding of the problem.

Visual literacy and representational competence encompass the same dimensions: conceptual understanding, reasoning skills, and the nature of ERs. The spatial component inherent in ERs is constantly alluded to in biochemistry education while researchers in chemistry education have been more overt at teasing out spatial factors. For example, biochemistry educators consider visualization of relative size and scale important for translation between representations,6 while chemistry educators have paid close attention to translation from a variety of operational perspectives including the following: matching physical models to 2D sketches, practicing 2D to 3D translation between representations, and describing spatial manipulations such as rotation and reflection.4,98,96,110 Depth cues (Figure 2A) have been shown to increase understanding of 3D spatial relationships; however, they have not received recent attention.2,98,97 Biochemistry and chemistry education fields show slightly different approaches at promoting visual literacy or representational competence using visualization tools. Even though educators in both fields have used concrete models for explicit instruction, there are pronounced differences on the nature of the models. Biochemistry education has started to move toward the use of detailed concrete models based on the Protein Data Bank (PDB) files of molecules.43,53,65 However, recent studies use models that lack realistic physiological shape to represent molecular components67,68 such as chromatids represented by pipe cleaners. Concrete models in chemistry education distinctly reflect structural accuracy. For example, ball and stick kits are commercially available and they are based on geometries from the valence shell repulsion (VSEPR) theory. This literature review revealed a heavier emphasis in the use and development of visualization software in biochemistry education for the purpose of attaining conceptual understanding with minimal attention to spatial aspects of the complex macromolecules under study.55,56 On the other hand, chemistry educators have shown how the use of molecular modeling software has been beneficial for geometric105 and stereochemical understanding,106 both inherent to spatial abilities. 1002



■

(f) Explicit spatial instruction should be reinforced consistently as studies show that spatial abilities increase with use but decrease when left unattended. (g) This review points at a cautionary message to instructors about the use of spatial tests in their classrooms. When assessing spatial gains, instructors must choose an appropriate instrument. Available spatial tests are commonly used as “universal” spatial tools disregarding the specific spatial tasks targeted at instruction and then meant to be assessed. This review also suggests potential areas for investigation by researchers in both fields including the following: (a) Studies have highlighted the malleability of spatial training; however, the causes and effects of such training in biochemistry and chemistry education remain poorly understood. For example, systematic investigations could shed light on which strategies and time frames are most effective at improving specific spatial skills or how the type of training affects durability effects and transferability of effects. (b) Exploring the potential of different visualization tools to improve spatial abilities remains a fertile area of investigation specifically considering under which instructional circumstances they would provide greater spatial gains. For example, molecular modeling has been shown to improve spatial abilities in high school students134 and future studies could test the potential of molecular modeling to enhance spatial abilities at the college level. (c) We found that early work on depth cues98,97 and spatial awareness has not moved forward even though depth cues are tangible targets for spatial instruction. Seddon et al. used booklets with 2D representations and concrete models with light to generate shadows for explicit depth cue training.97 His findings recommend instruction on each cue separately and in combination. The effectiveness of this type of training could be further explored. (d) This review did not focus on gender differences in spatial ability; however, gender differences were highlighted in a considerable number of studies. Controversy still exists with respect to the developmental and/or physiological origins of the gender differences and the conditions affecting the magnitude of the gender differences detected.9,137 Forward studies should take into account that performance differences depend on the specific skill involved, as well as on the instrument used and administration conditions.138 This review revealed how extensive the literature has been with respect to conceptual understanding and reasoning skills that assume or allude to the spatial dimension but unable to present spatial ability as a stand-alone dimensional target of research efforts. The fundamental challenge to discern how spatial skills can be segregated from other cognitive skills both at the design of instructional materials and the assessment of skills remains unanswered. We echo the long-standing call for interdisciplinary collaborations to shed light on the roots of spatial ability differences in order to design effective instructional materials and maximize benefits from explicit spatial instruction.

■

Article

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Maria Oliver-Hoyo: 0000-0003-3542-4930 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant DUE1500286.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Pribyl, J. R.; Bodner, G. M. Spatial Ability and Its Role in Organic Chemistry: A Study of Four Organic Courses. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1987, 24 (3), 229−240. (2) Tuckey, H.; Selvaratnam, M. Studies Involving Three-Dimensional Visualization Skills in Chemistry: A Review. Stud. Sci. Educ. 1993, 21 (1), 99−121. (3) Falvo, D. A.; Suits, J. P. Gender and Spatial Ability and the Use of Specific Labels and Diagrammatic Arrows in a Micro-Level Chemistry Animation. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2009, 41 (1), 83−102. (4) Carlisle, D.; Tyson, J.; Nieswandt, M. Fostering Spatial Skill Acquisition by General Chemistry Students. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16 (3), 478−517. (5) Schönborn, K. J.; Anderson, T. R.; Grayson, D. J. Student Difficulties with the Interpretation of a Textbook Diagram of Immunoglobulin G (IgG). Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2002, 30 (2), 93−97. (6) Schönborn, K. J.; Anderson, T. R. Bridging the Educational Research-Teaching Practice Gap: Foundations for Assessing and Developing Biochemistry Students’ Visual Literacy. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2010, 38 (5), 347−354. (7) Harle, M.; Towns, M. H. Students’ Understanding of External Representations of the Potassium Ion Channel Protein, Part I: Affordances and Limitations of Ribbon Diagrams, Vines, and Hydrophobic/polar Representations. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2012, 40 (6), 349−356. (8) Wu, H.-K.; Shah, P. Exploring Visuospatial Thinking in Chemistry Learning. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88 (3), 465−492. (9) Harle, M.; Towns, M. A Review of Spatial Ability Literature, Its Connection to Chemistry, and Implications for Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (3), 351−360. (10) Hegarty, M. Spatial Thinking in Undergraduate Science Education. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 2014, 14 (2), 142−167. (11) Small, M. Y.; Morton, M. E. Research in College Science Teaching: Spatial Visualization Training Improves Performance in Organic Chemistry. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1983, 13 (1), 41−43. (12) Carter, C. S.; Larussa, M. A.; Bodner, G. M. A Study of Two Measures of Spatial Ability as Predictors of Success in Different Levels of General Chemistry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1987, 24 (7), 645−657. (13) Wai, J.; Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C. P. Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning over 50 Years of Cumulative Psychological Knowledge Solidifies Its Importance. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 101 (4), 817−835. (14) Linn, M. C.; Petersen, A. C. Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analysis. Child Dev. 1985, 56 (6), 1479−1498. (15) Hegarty, M.; Waller, D. A. Indivitual Differences in Spatial Abilities. In The Cambridge Book of Visuospatial Thinking; Shah, P., Miyake, A., Eds.; Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology; Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005; pp 121−169. (16) Spearman, C. E. Spatial Abilities and Group Factors. In The Abilities of Man: Their Nature and Measurement; Macmillan: New York, 1927; p 226.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00094. Terminology table with brief descriptions of terms commonly mentioned throughout the article (PDF) 1003



Article

(17) Lohman, D. F. Spatial Ability: A Review and Reanalysis of the Correlational Literature, Technical Report No. 8, Aptitude Research Project; School of Education, Stanford University: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1979. (18) Carroll, J. B. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of FactorAnalytic Studies; Cambridge University Press: New York, 1993; pp 304−363. (19) Shea, D. L.; Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C. P. Importance of Assessing Spatial Ability in Intellectually Talented Young Adolescents: A 20-Year Longitudinal Study. J. Educ. Psychol. 2001, 93 (3), 604−614. (20) Webb, R. M.; Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C. P. Spatial Ability: A Neglected Dimension in Talent Searches for Intellectually Precocious Youth. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 99 (2), 397−420. (21) Kell, H. J.; Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C. P.; Steiger, J. H. Creativity and Technical Innovation: Spatial Ability’s Unique Role. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24 (9), 1831−1836. (22) Uttal, D. H.; Meadow, N. G.; Tipton, E.; Hand, L. L.; Alden, A. R.; Warren, C.; Newcombe, N. S. The Malleability of Spatial Skills: A Meta-Analysis of Training Studies. Psychol. Bull. 2013, 139 (2), 352− 402. (23) Uttal, D. H.; Miller, D. I.; Newcombe, N. S. Exploring and Enhancing Spatial Thinking: Links to Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 22 (5), 367−373. (24) Hsi, S.; Linn, M. C.; Bell, J. E. The Role of Spatial Reasoning in Engineering and the Design of Spatial Instruction. J. Eng. Educ. 1997, 86 (2), 151−158. (25) Sorby, S. A.; Baartmans, B. The Development and Assessment of a Course for Enhancing the 3-D Spatial Visualization Skills of FirstYear Engineering Students. J. Eng. Educ. 2000, 89 (3), 301−307. (26) Gerson, H. B. P.; Sorby, S. A.; Wysocki, A.; Baartmans, B. J. The Development and Assessment of Multimedia Software for Improving 3-D Spatial Visualization Skills. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2001, 9 (2), 105−113. (27) Sorby, S. A.; Wysocki, A.; Baartmans, B. J. Introduction to 3-D Spatial Visualization: An Active Approach; Thomson-Delmar Learning: Clifton Park, NY, USA, 2003. (28) Sorby, S. A. Assessment of A “new and Improved” course for the Development of 3-D Spatial Skills. Eng. Des. Graph. J. 2005, 69 (3), 6− 13. (29) Sorby, S. A. Educational Research in Developing 3-D Spatial Skills for Engineering Students. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2009, 31 (3), 459− 480. (30) Sorby, S. A. A Course in Spatial Visualization and Its Impact on the Retention of Female Engineering Students. J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 2001, 7 (2), 20. (31) Sorby, S.; Casey, B.; Veurink, N.; Dulaney, A. The Role of Spatial Training in Improving Spatial and Calculus Performance in Engineering Students. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2013, 26, 20−29. (32) Miller, D. I.; Halpern, D. F. Can Spatial Training Improve LongTerm Outcomes for Gifted STEM Undergraduates? Learn. Individ. Differ. 2013, 26, 141−152. (33) Linenberger, K. J.; Holme, T. A. Biochemistry Instructors’ Views toward Developing and Assessing Visual Literacy in Their Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (1), 23−31. (34) Schönborn, K. J.; Anderson, T. R. The Importance of Visual Literacy in the Education of Biochemists. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2006, 34 (2), 94−102. (35) Bamford, A. The Visual Literacy White Paper; Adobe Systems: Uxbridge, U.K., 2003; commissioned by Adobe Systems Australia, http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/education/ pdfs/visual-literacy-wp.pdf (accessed May 2017). (36) Ainsworth, S. The Functions of Multiple Representations. Comput. Educ. 1999, 33, 131−152. (37) Kozma, R. B. The Use of Multiple Representations and the Social Construction of Understanding in Chemistry. In Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for Technologies of Learning; Jacobson, M., Kozma, R. B., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2000; pp 11−46.

(38) Gilbert, J. K. Visualization: An Emergent Field of Practice and Enquiry in Science Education. In Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education; Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., Nakhleh, M., Eds.; Springer, New York, 2008; pp3−24. (39) Schönborn, K. J.; Anderson, T. R. A Model of Factors Determining Students’ Ability to Interpret External Representations in Biochemistry. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2009, 31 (2), 193−232. (40) Mnguni, L. E. The Theoretical Cognitive Process of Visualization for Science Education. SpringerPlus 2014, 3 (1), 184− 193. (41) Dries, D. R.; Dean, D. M.; Listenberger, L. L.; Novak, W. R. P.; Franzen, M. A.; Craig, P. A. An Expanded Framework for Biomolecular Visualization in the Classroom: Learning Goals and Competencies. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2017, 45 (1), 69−75. (42) Forbes-Lorman, R. M.; Harris, M. A.; Chang, W. S.; Dent, E. W.; Nordheim, E. V.; Franzen, M. A. Physical Models Have GenderSpecific Effects on Student Understanding of Protein StructureFunction Relationships. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2016, 44, 326−335. (43) Harris, M. A.; Peck, R. F.; Colton, S.; Morris, J.; Chaibub Neto, E.; Kallio, J. A. A Combination of Hand-Held Models and Computer Imaging Programs Helps Students Answer Oral Questions about Molecular Structure and Function: A Controlled Investigation of Student Learning. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2009, 8 (1), 29−43. (44) Richardson, D. C.; Richardson, J. S. The Kinemage: A Tool for Scientific Communication. Protein Sci. 1992, 1 (1), 3−9. (45) Richardson, D. C.; Richardson, J. S. Teaching Molecular ThreeDimensional Literacy. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2002, 30 (1), 21−26. (46) Richardson, D. C.; Richardson, J. S. Kinemage Simple Macromolecular Graphics for Interactive Teaching and Publication. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1994, 19 (3), 135−138. (47) Sayle, R. A.; Milner-White, E. J. RASMOL: Biomolecular Graphics for All. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1995, 20 (9), 374−376. (48) Herráez, A. Biomolecules in the Computer: Jmol to the Rescue. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2006, 34 (4), 255−261. (49) PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 1.8; Schrödinger, 2015. (50) Kaplan, W.; Littlejohn, T. G. Swiss-PDB Viewer (Deep View). Briefings Bioinf. 2001, 2 (2), 195−197. (51) Martz, E. Protein Explorer: Easy yet Powerful Macromolecular Visualization. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2002, 27 (2), 107−109. (52) Pettersen, E. F.; Goddard, T. D.; Huang, C. C.; Couch, G. S.; Greenblatt, D. M.; Meng, E. C.; Ferrin, T. E. UCSF Chimera - A Visualization System for Exploratory Research and Analysis. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25 (13), 1605−1612. (53) Roberts, J. R.; Hagedorn, E.; Dillenburg, P.; Patrick, M.; Herman, T. Physical Models Enhance Molecular Three-Dimensional Literacy in an Introductory Biochemistry Course. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2005, 33 (2), 105−110. (54) Geldenhuys, W. J.; Hayes, M.; Van der Schyf, C. J.; Allen, D. D.; Malan, S. F. Receptor Surface Models in the Classroom: Introducing Molecular Modeling to Students in a 3-D World. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (6), 979. (55) Richardson, D. C.; Richardson, J. S., Jr.; Sirochman, R.; Weiner, S. W.; Farwell, M.; Putnam-Evans, C.; Booth, D.; Bateman, R. C., Jr. Assessment of Molecular Construction in Undergraduate Biochemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (12), 1854. (56) White, B.; Kahriman, A.; Luberice, L.; Idleh, F. Evaluation of Software for Introducing Protein Structure: Visualization and Simulation. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2010, 38 (5), 284−289. (57) Craciun, D.; Isvoran, A. Teaching Molecular Biology Using Computational Tools and Tacking into Account the Learning Styles of Students. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2009, 14 (4), 4567−4574. (58) Fletcher, T. M.; Ershler, J. A Learner-Centered Molecular Modeling Exercise for Allied Health Majors in a Biochemistry Class. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2014, 43 (9), 34−40. (59) Rigsby, R. E.; Parker, A. B. Using the PyMOL Application to Reinforce Visual Understanding of Protein Structure. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2016, 44 (5), 433−437. 1004



Article

(80) Gabel, D. Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 548−553. (81) Towns, M. H.; Raker, J. R.; Becker, N.; Harle, M.; Sutcliffe, J. The Biochemistry Tetrahedron and the Development of the Taxonomy of Biochemistry External Representations (TOBER). Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13 (3), 296−306. (82) Nicoll, G. A Qualitative Investigation of Undergraduate Chemistry Students’ Macroscopic Interpretations of the Submicroscopic Structures of Molecules. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (2), 205−213. (83) Kozma, R. B.; Russell, J. Multimedia and Understanding: Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34 (9), 949−968. (84) Kozma, R.; Chin, E.; Russell, J.; Marx, N. The Roles of Representations and Tools in the Chemistry Laboratory and Their Implications for Chemistry Learning. J. Learn. Sci. 2000, 9 (2), 105− 143. (85) Bodner, G. M.; Guay, R. B. The Purdue Visualization of Rotations Test. Chem. Educ. 1997, 2 (4), 1−17. (86) Bodner, G. M.; Herron, J. D. Problem Solving in Chemistry; In Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice; Gilbert, J. K., de Jong, O., Justi, R., Treagust, D. F., van Driel, J. H., Eds.; Kluwer Academic: Norwell, MA, USA, 2002; pp 235−266. (87) Supasorn, S.; Suits, J. P.; Jones, L. L.; Vibuljan, S. Impact of a Pre-Laboratory Organic-Extraction Simulation on Comprehension and Attitudes of Undergraduate Chemistry Students. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008, 9 (2), 169−181. (88) Stieff, M. Mental Rotation and Diagrammatic Reasoning in Science. Learn. Instr. 2007, 17 (2), 219−234. (89) Stieff, M.; Ryu, M.; Dixon, B.; Hegarty, M. The Role of Spatial Ability and Strategy Preference for Spatial Problem Solving in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (7), 854−859. (90) Stieff, M.; Raje, S. Expert Algorithmic and Imagistic Problem Solving Strategies in Advanced Chemistry. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 2010, 10 (1), 53−81. (91) Stieff, M.; Dixon, B. L.; Ryu, M.; Kumi, B. C.; Hegarty, M. Strategy Training Eliminates Sex Differences in Spatial Problem Solving in a STEM Domain. J. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 106 (2), 390−402. (92) Keig, P. F.; Rubba, P. A. Translation of Representations of the Structure of Matter and Its Relationship to Reasoning, Gender, Spatial Reasoning, and Specific Prior Knowledge. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1993, 30 (8), 883−903. (93) Stull, A. T.; Hegarty, M.; Dixon, B.; Stieff, M. Representational Translation With Concrete Models in Organic Chemistry. Cogn. Instr. 2012, 30 (4), 404−434. (94) Hinze, S. R.; Rapp, D. N.; Williamson, V. M.; Shultz, M. J.; Deslongchamps, G.; Williamson, K. C. Beyond Ball-and-Stick: Students’ Processing of Novel STEM Visualizations. Learn. Instr. 2013, 26, 12−21. (95) Padalkar, S.; Hegarty, M. Models as Feedback: Developing Representational Competence in Chemistry. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 107 (2), 451−467. (96) Schiltz, H. K.; Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. Physical Models That Provide Guidance in Visualization Deconstruction in an Inorganic Context. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (7), 873−877. (97) Seddon, G. M.; Adeola, A.; El Farra, A. O. K.; Oyediji, S. I. The Responsiveness of Students to Pictorial Depth Cues and the Understanding of Diagrams of Three-Dimensional Structures. Br. Educ. Res. J. 1984, 10 (1), 49−62. (98) Tuckey, H.; Selvaratnam, M.; Bradley, J. Identification and Rectification of Student Difficulties Concerning Three-Dimensional Structures, Rotation, and Reflection. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68 (6), 460. (99) Kozma, R. The Material Features of Multiple Representations and Their Cognitive and Social Affordances for Science Understanding. Learn. Instr. 2003, 13 (2), 205−226. (100) Michalchik, V.; Rosenquist, A.; Kozma, R.; Kreikemeier, P.; Schank, P. Representational Resources for Constructing Shared Understanding in the High School Chemistry Classroom. In Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education; Gilbert, J. K.,

(60) Günersel, A. B.; Fleming, S. A. Qualitative Assessment of a 3D Simulation Program: Faculty, Students, and Bio-Organic Reaction Animations. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (8), 988−994. (61) Günersel, A. B.; Fleming, S. Bio-Organic Reaction Animations (BioORA): Student Performance, Student Perceptions, and Instructor Feedback. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2014, 42 (3), 190−202. (62) Bussey, T. J.; Orgill, M. What Do Biochemistry Students Pay Attention to in External Representations of Protein Translation? The Case of the Shine-Dalgarno Sequence. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 714−730. (63) Craig, P. A.; Michel, L. V.; Bateman, R. C. A Survey of Educational Uses of Molecular Visualization Freeware. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2013, 41 (3), 193−205. (64) O’Donoghue, S. I.; Goodsell, D. S.; Frangakis, A. S.; Jossinet, F.; Laskowski, R. A.; Nilges, M.; Saibil, H. R.; Schafferhans, A.; Wade, R. C.; Westhof, E.; Olson, A. J. Visualization of Macromolecular Structures. Nat. Methods 2010, 7 (3s), S42−S55. (65) Herman, T.; Morris, J.; Colton, S.; Batiza, A.; Patrick, M.; Franzen, M.; Goodsell, D. S. Tactile Teaching: Exploring Protein Structure/function Using Physical Models. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2006, 34 (4), 247−254. (66) Gillet, A.; Sanner, M.; Stoffler, D.; Olson, A. Tangible Interfaces for Structural Molecular Biology. Structure 2005, 13 (3), 483−491. (67) Selvarajah, G.; Selvarajah, S. Model Building to Facilitate Understanding of Holliday Junction and Heteroduplex Formation, and Holliday Junction Resolution. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2016, 44 (4), 381−390. (68) Guzman, K.; Bartlett, J. Using Simple Manipulatives to Improve Student Comprehension of a Complex Biological Process: Protein Synthesis. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2012, 40 (5), 320−327. (69) Loertscher, J.; Villafañe, S. M.; Lewis, J. E.; Minderhout, V. Probing and Improving Student’s Understanding of Protein a-Helix Structure Using Targeted Assessment and Classroom Interventions in Collaboration with a Faculty Community of Practice. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2014, 42 (3), 213−223. (70) Srivastava, A. Building Mental Models by Dissecting Physical Models. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2016, 44 (1), 7−11. (71) dos Santos, V. J. S. V; Galembeck, E. Metabolic Pathways Visualization Skills Development by Undergraduate Students. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2015, 43 (3), 162−167. (72) Abualia, M.; Schroeder, L.; Garcia, M.; Daubenmire, P. L.; Wink, D. J.; Clark, G. A. Connecting Protein Structure to Intermolecular Interactions: A Computer Modeling Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1353−1363. (73) Harle, M.; Towns, M. H. Students’ Understanding of Primary and Secondary Protein Structure: Drawing Secondary Protein Structure Reveals Student Understanding Better than Simple Recognition of Structures. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2013, 41 (6), 369−376. (74) Quillin, K.; Thomas, S. Drawing-to-Learn: A Framework for Using Drawings to Promote Model-Based Reasoning in Biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ 2015, 14 (1), es2. (75) Harle, M.; Towns, M. H. Students’ Understanding of External Representations of the Potassium Ion Channel Protein Part II: Structure-Function Relationships and Fragmented Knowledge. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2012, 40 (6), 357−363. (76) Linenberger, K. J.; Bretz, S. L. Generating Cognitive Dissonance in Student Interviews through Multiple Representations. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13 (3), 172−178. (77) Linenberger, K. J.; Bretz, S. L. Biochemistry Students’ Ideas about Shape and Charge in Enzyme-Substrate Interactions. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2014, 42 (3), 203−212. (78) Johnstone, A. H. Why Is Science Difficult to Learn? Things Are Seldom What They Seem. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 1991, 7, 75−83. (79) Johnstone, A. H. The Development of Chemistry Teaching: A Changing Response to Changing Demand. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70 (9), 701. 1005



Article

(123) Yue, J. Spatial Visualization by Realistic 3D Views. Eng. Des. Graph. J. 2008, 72 (1), 28−38. (124) Peters, M.; Laeng, B.; Latham, K.; Jackson, M.; Zaiyouna, R.; Richardson, C. A Redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test: Different Versions and Factors That Affect Performance. Brain Cogn. 1995, 28 (1), 39−58. (125) Vandenberg, S. G.; Kuse, A. R. Mental Rotations, a Group Test of Three-Dimensional Spatial Visualization. Percept. Mot. Skills 1978, 47 (2), 599−604. (126) Voyer, D.; Doyle, R. A. Item Type and Gender Differences on the Mental Rotations Test. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2010, 20 (5), 469− 472. (127) Bors, D. A.; Vigneau, F. Sex Differences on the Mental Rotation Test: An Analysis of Item Types. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2011, 21 (1), 129−132. (128) Oliver-Hoyo, M.; Sloan, C. The Development of a VisualPerceptual Chemistry Specific (VPCS) Assessment Tool. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2014, 51 (8), 963−981. (129) Karacop, A.; Doymus, K. Effects of Jigsaw Cooperative Learning and Animation Techniques on Students’ Understanding of Chemical Bonding and Their Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2013, 22 (2), 186−203. (130) Springer, M. T. Improving Students’ Understanding of Molecular Structure through Broad-Based Use of Computer Models in the Undergraduate Organic Chemistry Lecture. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (8), 1162−1168. (131) Ferk, V.; Vrtacnik, M.; Blejec, A.; Gril, A. Students’ Understanding of Molecular Structure Representations. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25 (10), 1227−1245. (132) Hornbuckle, S. F.; Gobin, L.; Thurman, S. N. Spatial Reasoning: Improvement Of Imagery and Abilities in Sophmore Organic Chemistry. Perspective to Enhance Student Learning. Contemp. Issues Educ. Res. 2014, 7 (1), 45−50. (133) Coleman, S. L.; Gotch, A. J. Spatial Perception Skills of Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (2), 206−209. (134) Jose, T. J.; Williamson, V. M. The Effects of a Two-Year Molecular Visualization Experience on Teachers’ Attitudes, Content Knowledge, and Spatial Ability. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (5), 718−723. (135) Tuvi-Arad, I.; Blonder, R. Continuous Symmetry and Chemistry Teachers: Learning Advanced Chemistry Content through Novel Visualization Tools. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11 (1), 48− 58. (136) Bodner, G. M.; McMillen, T. L. B. Cognitive Restructuring as an Early Stage in Problem Solving. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1986, 23 (8), 727−737. (137) Newcombe, N. S.; Stieff, M. Six Myths About Spatial Thinking. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34 (6), 955−971. (138) Massa, L. J.; Mayer, R. E.; Bohon, L. M. Individual Differences in Gender Role Beliefs Influence Spatial Ability Test Performance. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2005, 15 (2), 99−111.

Reiner, M., Nakhleh, M., Eds.; Springer: New York, 2008; pp 233− 282. (101) Stieff, M.; Scopelitis, S.; Lira, M. E.; Desutter, D. Improving Representational Competence with Concrete Models. Sci. Educ. 2016, 100 (2), 344−363. (102) Schiltz, H. K. Promoting Visualization Skills through Deconstruction Using Physical Models and a Visualization Activity Intervention. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2013. (103) McNeil, N. M.; Uttal, D. H. Rethinking the Use of Concrete Materials in Learning: Perspectives from Development and Education. Child Dev. Perspect. 2009, 3 (3), 137−139. (104) Dori, Y. J.; Barak, M.; Adir, N. A Web-Based Chemistry Course as a Means to Foster Freshmen Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (9), 1084. (105) Appling, J. R.; Peake, L. C. Instructional Technology and Molecular Visualization. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2004, 13 (3), 361−365. (106) Abraham, M.; Varghese, V.; Tang, H. Using Molecular Representations to Aid Student Understanding of Stereochemical Concepts. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (12), 1425−1429. (107) Yang, E.; Andre, T.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Tibell, L. Spatial Ability and the Impact of Visualization/Animation on Learning Electrochemistry. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25 (3), 329−349. (108) Aldahmash, A. H.; Abraham, M. R. Kinetic versus Static Visuals for Facilitating College Students’ Understanding of Organic Reaction Mechanisms in Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (12), 1442−1446. (109) Mayer, R. E.; Sims, V. K. For Whom Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Extensions of a Dual-Coding Theory of Multimedia Learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 1994, 86 (3), 389−401. (110) Williamson, V. M.; Watkins, J. T.; Williamson, K. C. The Effect of Student-Constructed Animations versus Storyboards on Students’ Mental Rotation Ability, Equilibrium Content Knowledge, and Attitudes. ACS Symp. Ser. 2013, 1142, 293−311. (111) McCollum, B. M.; Regier, L.; Leong, J.; Simpson, S.; Sterner, S. The Effects of Using Touch-Screen Devices on Students’ Molecular Visualization and Representational Competence Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (11), 1810−1817. (112) Schroeder, R. Possible Worlds: The Social Dynamic of Virtual Reality Technology; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1996; p 25. (113) Dalgarno, B.; Lee, M. J. W. What Are the Learning Affordances of 3-D Virtual Environments? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 41 (1), 10− 32. (114) Trindade, J.; Fiolhais, C.; Almeida, L. Science Learning in Virtual Environments: A Descriptive Study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2002, 33 (4), 471−488. (115) Keeney-Kennicutt, W. L.; Merchant, Z. H. Using Virtual Worlds in the General Chemistry Classroom. ACS Symp. Ser. 2013, 1142, 181−204. (116) Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E. T.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Cifuentes, L.; Kwok, O.; Davis, T. J. Exploring 3-D Virtual Reality Technology for Spatial Ability and Chemistry Achievement. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2013, 29 (6), 579−590. (117) Ekstrom, R. B. R.; French, J. J. W.; Harman, H. H.; Dermen, D. Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests; Educational Testing Service: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1976. (118) Eliot, J.; Smith, I. M. An International Directory of Spatial Tests; NFER-Nelson: Windsor, U.K., 1983. (119) Kovac, R. J. The Validation of Selected Spatial Ability Tests via Correlational Assessment and Analysis of User-Processing Strategy. Educ. Res. Q. 1989, 13 (2), 26−34. (120) Guay, R. Visual of Rotations. Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests; Purdue Research Foundation: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 1977. (121) Xu, X.; Kim, E. S.; Lewis, J. E. Sex Difference in Spatial Ability for College Students and Exploration of Measurement Invariance. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2016, 45, 176−184. (122) Branoff, T. J. Spatial Visualization Measurement: A Modification of the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test - Visualization of Rotations. Eng. Des. Graph. J. 2000, 64 (2), 14−22. 1006


Promotion of Spatial Skills in Chemistry and Biochemistry Education at

Recommend Documents