Chapter 10

Representational Competence, Understanding

of Experiments, Phenomena and Basic
Concepts in Geometrical Optics:
A Representational Approach

Andreas Müller, Rosa Hettmannsperger, Jochen Scheid,

and Wolfgang Schnotz

10.1  Introduction

A considerable body of empirical and theoretical research has shown the essential
role of multiple representations (MRs) for science learning, on the one hand for
specific aspects such as conceptual learning (Nieminen et  al. 2012; Tsui and
Treagust 2013, ch. 2, 5, 16) and reasoning (Tytler et al. 2013, ch. 6; Verschaffel et al.
2010), or problem solving, transfer or communication, on the other hand for exper-
tise in general (Gilbert and Treagust 2009, ch. 12; van Someren et al. 1998, ch. 2).
A theoretical account of these findings is discussed in Chap. 1 of this book in terms
of models for the cognitive (“dual coding” family of models) and educational
(DeFT; Ainsworth 2006) aspects of MRs. On the epistemological level, the term
‘representation’ is understood as a tripartite relation of a referent Rt (or object),

A. Müller (*)
Faculty of Sciences/Physics Education, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Institute of Elementary and Primary Education, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
e-mail: andreas.mueller@unige.ch
R. Hettmannsperger
Institute of Elementary and Primary Education, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
e-mail: hettmannsperger@em.uni-frankfurt.de
J. Scheid
Institute of Science Education, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany
e-mail: scheid@uni-landau.de
W. Schnotz
Department of General and Educational Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau,
Landau, Germany
e-mail: schnotz@uni-landau.de

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 209

D.F. Treagust et al. (eds.), Multiple Representations in Physics Education,
Models and Modeling in Science Education 10,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_10
210 A. Müller et al.

its representation Rn, and the meaning M (or interpretation) of Rt, Rn and of their
interaction. This relation is referred to in various ways (eg. ‘Peircean triangle’, or
‘triangle of meaning’; see Tytler et al. 2013, ch. 6).
In the present contribution, we review the background and results of two con-
nected studies of MRs related to experiments (Hettmannsperger et  al. 2014;
Hettmannsperger 2015; Scheid 2013; Scheid et al. 2014). We had chosen geometri-
cal optics as area of investigation, because it is rich in MRs, and it is taught as one
of the first subjects in many German physics curricula, so it seemed worthwhile to
know if there are effective learning approaches already at that stage. The focus of
investigations was on two aspects, which are considered to be essential for the learn-
ing of science in general, and of physics in particular.1

10.1.1  Experiments and Representational Coherence Ability

It is well known in science education, that proper understanding of and learning

from experiments (or observations) requires mastery of a multiplicity of representa-
tional formats (RFs), from the “enactive” or “operational” manipulation of the
experimental devices and materials (Bruner 1964; Piaget 1977) to the most abstract
level of the mathematical formulation of the law(s) of nature underlying (or investi-
gated) in a given experiment (Feynman 1990). An important consequence of the
above-mentioned essential role of MRs for science (for many individual aspects and
in general) is that RCA is not an isolated competence, to be distinguished from
domain-specific expertise, but it is rather an integrative component of it (see Anzai
1991; van Heuvelen 1991). There is ample evidence for this crucial role of RCA
especially also for experiments and observations, both from science education
research (Gilbert and Treagust 2009; part II, 107 pp.; Tytler et al. 2013, in particular
ch. 3, 6, 9) as well as from best practice (Marzano et al. 2001).
According to research syntheses by Höffner and Leutner (2007) and Ploetzner
and Loewe (2012), the level of abstraction (or realism) is an essential feature of
MRs, and we propose the idea of a “representational ladder” related to an experi-
ment (and/or observation), see eg. Fig. 10.1 (the visual form was inspired by Leisen
1998) which is a kind of meta-representational metaphor and visualization: To use
a ladder properly, one not only has to be able to stay safely on every rung, but also
to easily climb up and down. In the example of Fig. 10.1, learners can do an image
formation experiment or work with a photograph or realistic drawing of it according
to the lowest line in the figure. The ray diagram encapsulates the optical situation in
a schematic way, allowing, given the object position, to determine by geometrical
construction the position and size of a sharp image. The mathematical equations in
the topmost line allows to answer the same question in a purely symbolic way (its
semi-quantitative textual formulation provides an intermediate step helping to inter-
pret the quantities and the relationships in the equation). Note that Fig. 10.1 does
merely propose a visualization (representation!) of different levels of abstraction,
and is not a proposition of a learning progression.
10  Representational Competence, Understanding of Experiments… 211

mathematical B b 1 1 1
= ; = +
description G g f g b
semi-quantitative The closer the object to the focus,
description the larger the image distance and size

schematic
drawing
level of abstraction

(ray diagram)

real(istic) drawing
or photography

Fig. 10.1  “Representational ladder” of a geometrical optics experiment

10.1.2  E
 xperiments and Representation Related Conceptual
Understanding and Change (RCU/C)2

A growing strand of research is focusing on the representational demands of devel-

oping students’ conceptual understanding and change, pointing out that students
need to develop and understand multiple representations to improve their under-
standing of basic scientific concepts (Botzer and Reiner 2005; Hubber et al. 2010;
Plötzner and Spada 1998).
In particular, understanding the link between scientific experiments and their
conceptual basis requires the learner to deal with multiple representations at differ-
ent levels of abstraction, such as describing observed phenomena by oral or written
language in terms of appropriate concepts, or expressing experimental results by
schematic diagrams or mathematical relations containing formal representations of
these concepts. In a qualitative study of student’s representations in the domain of
particle models about solids, liquids, and gases, Waldrip et al. (2010) showed that
student-generated representations can foster students’ conceptual learning, and
what teaching features offer effective support for this.
212 A. Müller et al.

Hubber et al. (2010) confirmed the efficacy of using multiple representations in

mechanics while teaching and learning the concept of force in a qualitative video
study. Borrowing from other fields of science education, the importance of MRs for
conceptual learning has been underlined in biology (Tsui and Treagust 2013) and
chemistry (Taber 2009), in particular for the fundamental topic of the micro-macro
level connection (Cheng and Gilbert 2009), and also in geoscience (Sell et al. 2006).
A classical example where a domain specific representation supposed to be a tool
turns into an obstacle specific for the learning topic of this study, ray optics, is the
idea that the image disappears, when the principal rays used for image construction
are blocked (s. Goldberg and McDermott 1987).
Regarding conceptual learning from and about experiments, cognitive conflict
with discrepant events has been discussed since long as a basis for conceptual
understanding and change, both in the discipline (Thagard 1991), and for the indi-
vidual (Thorley and Treagust 1987; Kim and Choi 2002; Lee et  al. 2003; Başer
2006; Zimrot and Ashkenazy 2007). While the precise theoretical underpinnings of
conceptual change are still under discussion, in particular with respect to the some-
times surprising persistence of misconceptions (Andersson and Kärrqvist 1983;
Fetherstonhaugh and Treagust 1992; Langley et al. 1997; Heywood 2005), there is
growing consensus that an essential element for conceptual learning is that learners
deal actively with discrepant information, whether experimental or other, i.e. that
learners need to use their own cognitive and representational resources (see Hubber
et al. 2010). In the present context, it is thus necessary to find appropriate learning
activities where students effectively undertake multi-representational reasoning
about experiments, if conceptual learning and change from the latter is to occur.
Note, that the aim here is specifically conceptual learning, and not laboratory work,
problem solving, or any other of the possible educational benefits of MRs men-
tioned in above.
In the sequel, such type of learning activities will be presented, which is the
study objective of this contribution.
One strategy to engage students to learn with MRs is the use of cognitively
activating tasks. These kinds of tasks aim at implementing cognitively challenging
learning strategies (Klauer and Leutner 2007) such as relating prior knowledge to
new information, initiating cognitive conflicts, searching different ways to solve a
problem, relating representations to others with equivalent or complementary
meanings, as well as encouraging students to express their own thoughts, ideas, and
concepts using various domain specific representations as cognitive tool (Stein and
Lane 1996; Kunter and Baumert 2013).

10.1.3  Representational Activity Tasks (RATs)

In the present context, “cognitive activation” means that students think more often,
more explicitly, and more deeply about experiment-related representations, express
them, and draw conclusions from them as would be the case in a usual learning
10  Representational Competence, Understanding of Experiments… 213

F F
B

Fig. 10.2  Example of a RAT (TG) requiring mapping of two representations (showing two differ-
ent imaging conditions) and a modification to achieve coherence between them (photograph as a
realistic picture, ray diagram as a schematic representation) plus a short written explanation

setting, without adequate instructional means. The learning activities to achieve

cognitive activation (in this sense) are a set of newly developed specific tasks, called
“Representational Activity Tasks (RATs)”, requiring learners to explicitly reason
about and analyze various experiment related representations. Conventional tasks
deal with the connections between representations most often implicitly, with a
focus on content and a problem statement related to it (such as finding the optical
image in a given lens arrangement), and based on the tacit assumption that the per-
tinent representational means to express this content and problem, and their connec-
tions (such as ray diagrams, and relating them to the experimental situation), will be
used by the learner without explicitly asking for this. In contrast, RATs involve
always two or more types of representations simultaneously, and explicitly ask
students to elaborate on various connections between them, such as comparing,
mapping, completing etc. MRs. An example of a RAT is given in Fig.  10.2, and
details about the design principles will be given in ‘Materials and Methods’.
Note that, while there are good reasons for potential benefits of MR based learn-
ing in the above sense, it creates also complex demands and increased cognitive
load for learners (van Someren, ch. 12; see Ainsworth 2006, and literature cited
therein). It is therefore a highly relevant question, whether an approach like RATs
can indeed improve RCA and RCU/C in spite of these demands. On the basis of the
above research background, the following general research questions are treated in
the present contribution: What is the impact of RATs on (a) representational coher-
ence (b) conceptual understanding when learning with experiments in ray optics?
Within the framework of a general overview and discussion of MRs in physics
education in this volume, the focus of the present contribution is on results about
these research questions and their interpretation, while detailed descriptions of the
methodology of the pair study on RCA and RCC/U are given elsewhere.
214 A. Müller et al.

10.2  Materials and Methods

10.2.1  Instructional Material and Intervention

In view of the background given above, the learning tasks aiming at representational
coherence (RCA) and representation related conceptual understanding/change
(RCU/C) require the following cognitive activities:

10.2.1.1  Representational Coherence Ability

Learners are required to carry out one of the following four different tasks formats
requiring coherence between different representations (“coherence tasks”):
• compare and map representations
• complete/modify representations (in order to establish consistency between dif-
ferent RFs)
• find and correct errors in representations (based on information from different
RFs)
• describe and explain their reasoning during the above activities.
Figure 10.2 shows an example of a RAT which involves mapping and modifying
multiple representations. This RAT consists of two similar experimental settings
containing a convergent lens, but with two different cases of image formation, viz.
reduction (left) and magnification (right) of the object size (as determined by differ-
ent relative values of object distance and focal length). These two settings are not
expressed by the same type of representation, but by a photograph and a schematic
drawing (ray diagram), and students are asked (i) to mark the differences between
the arrangement of optical elements (ii) to adapt the schematic drawing, in order to
establish coherence with the realistic representation, and (iii) to describe and justify
their modification in a short written text. The task thus explicitly requires to link
three different types of representations (realistic and schematic image, text). In con-
trast, the conventional task related to the same content asks to work with only one
representational format, eg. to complete the image construction with principle rays
(schematic image, see Fig. 10.3).
Note that in this and some other cases the CG tasks were just conventional appli-
cations of the ray model, and the requirements (as well as the written task formula-
tion) were more difficult for the treatment group  (TG) than for the CG.  The
comparison is not between tasks of equal difficulty, but between equal learning
time, where a part of the conventional tasks has been replaced by the more demand-
ing RATs.
10  Representational Competence, Understanding of Experiments… 215

F F

Fig. 10.3  Example of a traditional task (control group, CG) that focuses on only one type of rep-
resentation, requiring to complete the image construction with principle rays (a typical type of task
in the teaching of geometrical optics in the classroom setting of the target sample below)

Table 10.1 Conceptual Relation between light propagation,

difficulties treated in the scattering, and perception
RCC/U study (all taken from
Relation between light rays (model) and
existing research, see text)
light beams (phenomenon)
Role of principal rays
Formation of real images (intersection of
outgoing rays)
Formation of virtual images (intersection
of prolonged outgoing rays)
Effect of covering parts of a lens
Aerial image

10.2.1.2  Representation Related Conceptual Understanding/Change

The learning tasks to foster this aspect of science learning required use of different
representational formats for reasoning about common conceptual difficulties (see
Table 10.1), all of which were taken from existing research in this domain (Goldberg
and McDermott 1987; Wiesner 1986; Reiner et al. 2000). The TG students received
specific MR based cognitive activation measures, mainly self-generation of MRs
(in line with the findings of Waldrip et al. 2010), in some cases also completion of
partially given MRs. An example is the visibility of the real image formed by a
216 A. Müller et al.

Fig. 10.4  Example of a RAT requiring analysis/reasoning concerning a conceptual difficulty

related to the formation and visibility of real image by a converging lens. Learners are requested to
reason on the basis of the ray diagram in order to explain which of the observers (A–C) could see
the image with a transparent/opaque/no screen at point S

Table 10.2  Schedule of the unit on converging lenses and image formation (common for CG and
TG)
Lesson Content
1 Teacher experiment on converging lens: refraction, focus, principal rays, image
construction
2 Students experiment about same content: variation of parameters, protocol, discussion
3, 4 Working sheets: image construction, different imaging cases
5, 6 Working sheets: lens formula, revision of unit

converging lens when a transparent/opaque/no screen is present (aerial image). A

widespread conceptual difficulty is that the screen is necessary for (diffuse) reflec-
tion of the image, while it is not conceived that it would still be possible to see the
image if the observer’s eyes were located in the position of the screen (Goldberg and
McDermott 1987). Figure 10.4 shows the related RAT (TG, left side), which asks to
work with the ray diagram (schematic representation) in order to explain which of
the observers (A – C) could see the image with a transparent/opaque/no screen at
point S. The CG was merely asked to where the image would form, and from where
it would be visible (not referring to the ray diagram). Hence, in the latter task the
same conceptual difficulty was addressed, but it did not require to operate on the ray
diagram.
The interventions for RCA and RCU/C were embedded in the regular curriculum
and started when the topic of converging lenses and image formation had to be
taught according to the official schedule. The teachers in all conditions implemented
a detailed lesson plan, which was discussed and adapted according to their feedback
before the intervention began. The lesson plan followed a well-established teaching
sequence for the given subject matter.
The total length of the intervention was 6 lesson hours, see Table  10.2 for an
overview (6 × 45 min, grouped in 3 double lessons of 90 min, a standard format for
science teaching in Germany). The pretest for covariates and initial values of depen-
dent variables and the post-test for the values of the latter after the intervention were
administered in separate lesson before and after the learning unit. After having seen
and interpreted a teacher experiment demonstrating the basic principles (1st lesson),
students carried out and analyzed an experiment (2nd lesson) of their own, exploring
10  Representational Competence, Understanding of Experiments… 217

further the basic content of the teacher experiment. They then worked on tasks about
various aspects of the topic during a sequence of (4 × 45 min, 3th to 6th lesson).
Student work was carried out in pairs.
While time-on-task and core learning content were identical in control and treat-
ment groups (see Table 10.2), the learning tasks were differentiated according to the
learning objectives of the two studies as explained above. For the RCA study, the
TG1 instruction was enhanced by RATs focusing on representational coherence, i.e.
with one of the four types of “coherence tasks” presented above; CG1 worked on
additional conventional practice tasks instead. As an indication intervention strength,
the number of representational formats NRF necessary for a successful solution is 1½
times higher in the TG1 than in the CG1; the averages per item are 2.2 (≥2 per con-
struction) and 1.5, respectively (the latter value is slightly higher than the average of
1.2/item obtained from an analysis of roughly 800 conventional textbook task, see
Scheid 2013). For the RCU/C study, both groups followed also the content sum-
marized in Table 10.2, TG2 using different representational formats for reasoning
about common conceptual difficulties, also treated in the CG2 learning tasks, but
without representational reasoning as cognitive activation measure. Note that CG2
is a control group only with respect to the use of RATs, but that a treatment takes
place with respect to conceptual difficulties. As an indication intervention strength,
the number of self-generated MRs related to conceptual difficulties/misconceptions
is four times higher in the TG than in CG.

10.3  Design, Instruments and Analysis

A quasi-experimental pre-post design was used, for both the study on RCA and on
RCU/C. Together, there were four groups in the two partial studies, see Table 10.3
(all based on the standard lesson plan for geometrical optics, see above). There were
two types of treatment groups with an instruction enhanced by RATs (as explained
in the preceding section) focusing on representational coherence (TG1), and on
conceptual difficulties and conceptual change (TG2). The control groups (CGs) did
not learn with RATs, the first with conventional learning tasks instead (CG1), the
second with learning tasks dealing with the same set of conceptual difficulties, but
not requiring explicitly to operate on a given representation, e.g. a ray diagram
(CG2). This design allows for the following comparisons: TG1 and CG1 will be
compared in order to know whether RCA can be fostered by the RAT approach;

Table 10.3  Design table of the two interventions: Without/with RAT intervention × without/with
conceptual change (CC) intervention (no/yes)
RAT
n y
CC n CG1 TG1
y CG2 TG2
218 A. Müller et al.

TG2 will be compared to CG2 and CG1 in order to know, whether RCU/C can be
fostered by RATs as well as by learning tasks targeted at the same conceptual dif-
ficulties without a representational focus (comparison with CG2), and whether there
is any appreciable advantage at all compared to learning without addressing diffi-
culties (comparison with CG1). Up to the intervention, TGs and CGs were identical
in their content, lesson plans, number of learning tasks, and duration of the learning
sequence (6 weeks); moreover, corresponding TG and CG classes at the same school
were taught by the same teacher.
The investigation took place within regular secondary level I physics classrooms
in the German state “Rheinland-Pfalz” (N(RCA) = 167 (CG), 175 (TG) at six dif-
ferent schools; N(RCC) = 250 (CG), 275 (TG) at ten different schools; age group
13–15 years, average 13.5 years, 7th and 8th grades of German school system,
mostly from academic track schools (“Gymnasium3”; Scheid 2013; Hettmannsperger
2015). Subject matter was geometrical optics (light sources, light propagation and
rays, shadows, lenses, image formation), a standard topic according to the teaching
program of this age group. The length of the interventions was about six lessons
(6 × 45´ = 4.5 h in total). We now turn to a description of covariates and instruments
used.
In order to control for possibly different factors in CG and TG, in the RCC study
pre-test values, relevant school grades (mathematics, physics, and German lan-
guage), gender and class-size were taken into account as covariates. Moreover, three
subscales of cognitive ability related to different representational formats (word
associations, numbers, and visual/spatial imagination) were considered (Liepmann
et al. 2007). For the RCA study the same covariate set was considered (except class
size, as classes were not distinguished in the 2-level model considered, see below).
Moreover, in order to look for potential effects of the interventions on motivation, a
test based on well-validated instruments taken from the literature was used
(Hoffmann et al. 1997; Rheinberg and Wendland 2003; Kuhn 2010); reliability was
satisfactory across all intervention groups (αC > 0.9).
Instrument for RCA  In order to assess their representational coherence ability of
learners, test items required to relate real phenomena und experiments to various
types of representations and multiple representational formats to each other. Types
of coherence relationships to establish were comparing and mapping MRs, as well
completing and correcting given incoherent MRs; additionally, participants had to
describe and explain their reasoning while resolving these questions. Thus, the test
contained the same cognitive processes as the RAT intervention, but of course dif-
ferent tasks. Moreover, in half of the items reasoning about multiple representations
was not explicitly asked for, but implicitly necessary for solving the question; this
is an essential and widespread role of MRs in scientific work and thus has a high
curricular validity (see Fig. 10.5 for an example of a physics “word problem” of this
kind).
A pilot study was carried out in the same age group and classroom setting as the
main study, improving item formulations and detecting items which did not work
properly according to the desirable ranges (Ding and Beichner 2009). Moreover, an
10  Representational Competence, Understanding of Experiments… 219

Fig. 10.5  Example of an item assessing RCA indirectly (calculation with data contained in textual
form)

expert rating with 11 experienced teachers (on average 15 years of teaching experi-
ence) yielded satisfactory curricular validity for the remaining items (intra-class
correlation 0.5 < ICC < 0.7). There were 15 items retained for the main study, for
which we obtained the following instrument characteristics for the post-test (pre-­
test values cannot be expected to be in the desired ranges, as there is no consistent
knowledge yet). Overall internal consistency was αC = 0.79 (across different valida-
tion samples), testing for exclusion of the individual items did not lead to an
increase. Item difficulties were between .2 < p < .8, item-test correlation were rit > .3
(up to slight deviations for a few exceptions). Thus, the test characteristics are in the
desired value ranges according to the literature (Ding and Beichner 2009). A detailed
report on the RCA test is available in Scheid (2013).
Instrument for RCU  A concept test for geometrical optics (with focus on image
formation by lenses) was developed and validated in the same way as for the RCA
test, dealing with the core concepts of light propagation, scattering, formation of
real and virtual images, and visual perception of optical images. In a pilot study in
the same age group and classroom setting as the main study, items were tested for
necessary improvements of their formulations and for item characteristics in the
desirable ranges (Ding and Beichner 2009). The test was designed as multiple-­
choice-­test with remaining 11 items (test duration 15 min), each of which had the
scientifically correct answer and three distractors as answer options (see Table 10.4
for example items; Hettmannsperger 2015). Distractors were based on widespread
intuitive students’ concepts reported in literature (Goldberg and McDermott 1987;
Wiesner 1986; Reiner et al. 2000). Instrument characteristics for the post-test (as in
in the RCA study, see above) using the whole sample of both the RCA and RCC
study are as follows: Item difficulties ranged between .2 ≤ Pi ≤ .8 and item discrimi-
nation indices between .25 ≤ rit ≤ .45. Internal consistency attained a satisfactory
level (αC = .75). A detailed description and analysis of the concept test is available
in Hettmannsperger (2015).
In the RCA study a two-level model specifically adapted for the measurement of
change (Heck et  al. 2014; Göllner et  al. 2010) was used (level 1: measurement
times, level 2: intervention groups). It allows to analyze students’ learning progress
over time in a way which has several advantages when compared to repeated mea-
surements analysis of variance (treatment of missings; less strict applicability
requirements; more flexibility in the form of the temporal development; Göllner
et al. 2010). In the RCU/C study with higher number of classes/schools, a three-­
level model was implemented (level 1: measurements times; level 2: learners;
220 A. Müller et al.

Table 10.4  Sample items of the concept test

Scientific
concept Sample item
Ray model Which statement is correct?
 Light rays are something real, like thin water jets from a spray gun
 Light rays exist only in peoples’ minds, e.g. like constructions in geometry
 Light rays are exactly the same as light beams
 Light beams are mental objects, for example they are used to determine the
image size
Scattering and Which of the following objects/creatures can be seen in a completely dark
visibility room?
 A glowing firefly
 A white sheet of paper
 A bicycle reflector
 The eyes of a cat
Image In an experimental assembly a light bulb, a converging lens and a screen are
formation set up so that an enlarged, inverted and sharp image of the filament is formed.
What will happen if the bottom half of the lens is covered?
 The upper half of the image will be cut off
 The bottom half of the image will be cut off
 The image will become darker
 The image will become brighter

level 3: classes) (Fahrmeir et al. 2009). In both studies, proper treatment of vari-
ances (eg. entering the calculation of effect sizes) for the nested structure of the
samples is of course a main advantage of multilevel analysis. Due to the focus of the
present study, which is a discussion synthesizing the main effects of the two related
interventions and to lack of space, details about the multilevel analyses are given
elsewhere (Scheid 2013; Hettmannsperger 2015).
Finally, effect sizes between CGs and TGs were computed as Cohen d (using
pooled variance) according to standard procedures (Cohen 1988; Tymms 2004).
Additionally, the Hake index (Hake 1998) as a measure of the learning gain was
computed.

10.4  Results

The data revealed several main statements about representational coherence and
conceptual understanding, best discussed on the basis of Fig. 10.6 (see Table 10.5
for numerical values):
Initial Situation (Pretest Values)  Control and treatment groups started approxi-
mately at the same level for both RCA and RCU/C; there was in fact a slight but
statistically not significant advantage in favor of the CG in both cases (beyond
10  Representational Competence, Understanding of Experiments… 221

Fig. 10.6  Descriptive values of RCA (left) and RCU/C (right) in the pre- and post-test (normal-
ized to the maximal value of the relevant test in each case; for standard deviations, see Table 10.5)

Table 10.5  Descriptive values of RCA and RCU in the pre- and post-test (normalized to the
maximal value of the relevant test in each case)
CG1 TG1 CG2 TG2
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Pre RCA 0.07 (0.19) 0.07 (0.07) n.t. n.t.
RCU 0.36 (0.14) 0.37 (0.14) 0.34 (0.15) 0.34 (0.15)
Post RCA 0.41 (0.13) 0.52 (0.13) n.t. n.t.
RCU 0.43 (0.17) 0.43 (0.17) 0.51 (0.24) 0.49 (0.21)
Notes: Significance level of all pre-post changes: p < 0.001
Significance level of group comparisons: TG1 vs. GC1 and TG2 vs. CG1 p < 0.001, TG2 vs. CG2:
n.s. (see text for discussion)
n.t. (not tested): RCA was not investigated in study 2

visual inspection, these differences were taken account of in a more formal manner
as covariates, see sec. “Design…” above).
Intervention Effects (Pre/Post and CG/TG Comparisons)  After the interven-
tion, both control and treatment improved for both variables in question. For RCA
(TG1 vs. GC1), the RAT treatment led to a sizeable advantage compared to the
control group (p < 0.001, d = 0.64). For RCU/C, there is no significant difference
between learning tasks addressing common conceptual difficulties with and without
a representational focus (TG2 vs. CG2), but such a difference occurs when compar-
ing to learning without addressing these difficulties at all (TG2 vs. CG1; p < 0.001,
d = 0.4). In terms of the Hake gain index g = (Rf – Ri)/(1–Ri), where Ri/f are the
initial and final score, respectively, relative to the maximal possible gain (Hake
1998), one has the following results: the RCA control and treatment group achieve
a gCG(RCA) = 0.4 and gTG(RCA) = 0.5, respectively; for RCC the values are
gCG(RCC) = 0.1 and gTG(RCC) = 0.2.
With regard to covariate influences, grades in mathematics (medium effect size)
and physics (small effect size), as well as visual/spatial imagination abilities (small
effect size) were found to have significant effects on the learning gain, but without
222 A. Müller et al.

a difference between the CG and the TG groups. For other subscales of cognitive
ability, German language grades and gender (as well as class size for the RCC
study) (in the RCC study, additionally class size) we did not find any significant
influences. Moreover, there were no significant motivation differences between
TG and CG neither in the pre- nor in the post test (see Hettmannsperger 2015;
Scheid 2013).
Intervention Comparison  Even though on a formally identically scale (from 0 to
1, by normalization to maximal test value), the absolute results for RCA and RCU/C
cannot be directly compared. There are however two features which deserve atten-
tion: First, the pre-test values of RCA relative to the maximal score are very low (the
test is related to specific physics content which had not been treated before accord-
ing to the teaching program), pre-test values of RCU/C, again as compared to maxi-
mal score, are noticeably higher (it is the very idea of concept tests that its items can
be understood even before formal teaching on the given subject it, in order to diag-
nose conceptual difficulties (and their possible change); see eg. Engelhardt (2009)
for a methodological paper, and many applications of the FCI, see Coletta et  al.
(2007) and references therein). Second, there is a large difference in relative
increase, RCA improves much more than RCU/C. In terms of the Hake gain index
values just given, there is a factor of almost 4 (CG) and more than 2 (TG) for the
difference in relative increase of RCA and RCU/C, a point to be discussed below.

10.5  Discussion

When comparing the two multiple representation based treatments aiming at either
improvement of coherence (RCA) or at conceptual understanding/change to the
control groups learning without such a representational focus (but otherwise com-
parable), we obtained the following results about possible influences of covariates
and about the main effects of the intervention. On the lowest level of the multilevel
analysis (measurement times/individuals), no influences of cognitive abilities
related to two RFs (words, numbers), nor of German language grades and gender
were found. Grades in mathematics and physics had a significant influence on learn-
ing gain (medium and small effect size, respectively), consistent with the famous
statement by Ausubel (1978) about previous knowledge as essential predictor of
learning. As geometrical optics is by definition related to geometry, and as a lot of
mathematics teaching is about geometry in the age group of our sample, the some-
how stronger influence of mathematics compared to physics is not completely
implausible. Moreover, visual/spatial imagination abilities also had a significant
effect on learning gains (small effect size). Again, it is not implausible that this
component of cognitive abilities influences learning in an area which has a lot to
do with geometric properties and constructions, while the abilities related to words
and numbers have not. The two preceding covariate influences (math grades,
10  Representational Competence, Understanding of Experiments… 223

visual/spatial abilities) are interesting points to be considered more in detail in the

future, both for a better scientific understanding of MRs, and for classroom practice.
On the higher levels (groups), statistically very highly significant advantages
with noticeable effect sizes concerning the interventions (TG versus CG) were
found for both RCA and RCU/C (d = 0.6 and d = 0.4, respectively; p < 0.001 in both
cases). Note, that these results were obtained with a series of control measures to
ensure comparability (in particular same teacher, comparable initial situation, con-
trol for remaining differences by taking account of several covariates; see above).
Moreover, on the level of classes in the RCU/C study, class size did not have an
influence on the outcomes. Finally, none of the covariates discussed above showed
a difference between the CG and the TG groups.
Thus, the beneficial effects of RATs found both for representational coherence
and for conceptual understanding show a certain stability with regard to possible
individual and classroom influence factors; see however, an important caveat dis-
cussed at the end of this section.
For RCA, there are at this time only few classroom interventions specifically
targeted at improvement of coherence of multiple representations, and a medium
effect on group level size in this state of research can be considered as satisfactory.
The study provided also insight for further improvement of the approach and its
analysis. First, a set of RATs dealt with the derivation of the magnification equation
and turned to be slightly too difficult in its present form. Appropriate scaffolding
(hints, intermediate steps) could lead to further improvement. Second, the interven-
tion covered tasks referring to two different experiments (propagation of parallel
light beams through a converging lens and image formation with a converging lens).
With a longer intervention, additional experiments could be included within ray
optics.
The analysis in this contribution is also restricted in the sense that the effects
presented are based on the whole RCA instrument. Further analysis can focus on
inter–item-differences to identify specific areas with conspicuously small learning
gains, indicating potential learning obstacles, and the necessity of a more effective
learning support (either by RATs or another approach), or on the contrary with high
learning gains, potentially improving the understanding of the instructional features
which make a RAT effective (the same holds in a similar way for the RCC study).
For RCC, the effect size is still acceptable, as the “persistence” of conceptual
difficulties is well known: conceptual change is notoriously hard to achieve (see
Schnotz 2006; Galili and Hazan 2000, for the subject matter of ray optics in particu-
lar), and classical strategies like inducing cognitive conflict by demonstration exper-
iments do not automatically lead to success (Limòn 2001; Vosniadou 2013). The
multiple representation based learning tasks turn out to be as effective as learning
tasks addressing the same conceptual difficulties without a representational focus,
and the effect size values come out at least at the threshold (d = 0.4) of noticeable
real-world differences known from meta-analysis (“hinge point”, Hattie 2009).
Note, that this is a result on the general level of the RCU instrument used, and
we do not address conceptual change for specific conceptual difficulties here
224 A. Müller et al.

(this would require a discussion on the individual item level, which we do not
present in this contribution).
On the one hand, the positive effects found are good news, as (multi-)representa-
tional reasoning requires an additional cognitive activity and thus creates additional
cognitive load potentially harmful for learning. But as the results show, this is not
the case for RATs, and as MR based reasoning is known to be essential also for
other important objectives of science education, it is a promising state of affairs that
appreciable positive effects on conceptual understanding are as well among the ben-
efits of this instructional approach and can possibly be combined with these other
objectives. On the other hand, in view of this very potential of representational
reasoning for science learning in general one could have expected that it should be
a more effective conceptual change strategy than addressing the same conceptual
difficulties without a representational focus. This then leads to limitations and open
questions of the present work, which will be addressed below.
Under another perspective, the Hake gain index complements these results of an
overall learning effectiveness of the two representational learning approaches. For
RCA, the TG value g = 0.5 obtained is comparable to those of the treatment groups
provided by other methods of cognitive activation (“interactive engagement”) in the
large comparison study of Hake (1998). For RCC, however, the TG value of g = 0.2
is the one of the traditional groups studies by Hake (1998). In terms of learning gain,
the RCC effects do not seem satisfactory, and this leads again to the discussion of
limitations and open questions, addressed in the following section.
With respect to above results, in particular the effect sizes found, we would like
to point to a limitation of the present work. The investigated samples (342 students
and 12 classes at 6 schools for RCA, and 525 students and 21 classes at 10 schools
for RCC, respectively) are large enough to cover a considerable range of individual,
class and school conditions, and thus to justify a degree of representativeness for the
given classroom setting comparable to other studies in physics education. However,
this setting is largely that of the German academic track schools (see), which entails
the following possible consequences: First, as existing research points to an appre-
ciable association of academic success and working memory (Gathercole et  al.
2004), and as cognitive load is one of the main problems with MRs (see Sect.
10.1.3), our finding that cognitive load does not impair the positive effects of RATs
has to be checked for learner groups with lower cognitive abilities. Second, in a
sample including learner groups of this kind, the variance in outcomes might be
larger, while the difference of averages of CG and TG might be smaller (according
to the preceding argument) than in the sample analyzed here, both leading to smaller
effect sizes; in this sense, effect sizes reported here belong a priori to academic track
students, and generalization to other students has do be done with a caveat, or on the
basis of new data.
10  Representational Competence, Understanding of Experiments… 225

10.6  Conclusions and Outlook

We may conclude that representational activity tasks (RATs) discussed in this

contribution can foster two kinds of educational objectives related to physics
experiments:
First, representational coherence ability (RCA) which deals with correctly and
fluently combining, mapping and correcting multiple representational formats
essential for proper understanding of and learning from experiments (or observa-
tions), from the level of “operational” or “enactive” manipulation of the experimen-
tal devices and materials to the most abstract level of the mathematical formulation
of the law of nature underlying (or investigated) in a given experiment.
Second, representation related conceptual understanding and change (RCU/C2)
which deals with a link between scientific experiments and their conceptual basis
and significance, with a special focus on conceptual difficulties, and requires the
learner again to reason with multiple representations at different levels of abstrac-
tion as just mentioned, such as describing observed phenomena by oral or written
language in terms of appropriate concepts, or expressing experimental results by
schematic diagrams or mathematical relations containing formal representations of
these concepts.
The focus in the case of RCA is coherence of multiple representations, in the
case of RCU/C their role for conceptual understanding. Effect sizes are of medium
size for the former (d = 0.6), and between small to medium size for the latter (d = 0.4).
This holds for realistic teaching conditions in regular classrooms.
With regard to classroom practice, RATs thus appear as a useful element of the
physics teacher’s toolkit of reasonable practical relevance. The effects for RCA are
stronger than those for RCC, but we found that at least (i) there was no harmful
cognitive load created by the extra requirement of the MR reasoning activities, and
(ii) that even for RCC the effects are as large as for learning tasks with the same
conceptual obstacles, but without MRs. This then, leads to several perspectives for
future research.
Subsequent investigations could look at a combined approach, which in the same
time aims at conceptual learning and other objectives of (multiple) representations
for the learning of science, in particular representational coherence. Is it possible to
adapt the RAT instructional design in a way, where the presence of positive learning
effects and the absence of harmful cognitive load, found in isolation for RCA and
RCC in the present study, will be maintained in the combined approach? Another
highly relevant question is whether it is possible to improve the effects of RATs on
conceptual learning, found to be smaller than desirable. In view of the persistence
of conceptual obstacles/misconceptions it seems reasonable to combine RATs with
other forms of cognitive activation, eg. through forms of peer/group debate (con-
frontation) of these obstacles (see e.g. Thorley and Treagust 1987; Zimrot and
Ashkenazi 2007). Finally, a more general objective is of course to investigate RATs
in other domains of physics (science) rich in MRs, such as mechanics.
226 A. Müller et al.

We hope that the two related studies presented here, with their focus on experi-
ments on the one hand, and coherence and conceptual significance of MRs on the
other, can serve as a useful and interesting contribution for the state of the discus-
sion as presented in this volume.

10.7  Notes

1. Many statements of this contribution are formulated with respect to physics edu-
cation, but could be generalized to science education; this should be kept in
mind, even when it is not explicitly stated everywhere.
2. As we have to distinguish conceptual understanding (at a given stage or time)
and change (between two stages or times), we use RCU and RCC, respectively,
in order to distinguish the two.
3. See the “TIMSS Encyclopedia” (Mullis et al. 2008) for background about the
German school system.
4. We follow the usual convention of effect size levels as small, medium and large
with 0.2 < d < 0.5, 0.5 ≤ d < 0.8 and 0.8 ≤ d, respectively (Cohen 1988).

References

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple rep-
resentations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Andersson, B., & Kärrqvist, C. (1983). How Swedish students, aged 12–15 years, understand light
and its properties. European Journal of Science Education, 5(4), 387–402.
Anzai, Y. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In K.  A. Ericsson
& J. Smith (Eds.), Towards a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 64–92).
Cambridge: University Press.
Ausubel, D. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New  York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Başer, M. (2006). Fostering conceptual change by cognitive conflict based instruction on students’
understanding of heat and temperature concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 2(2), 96–113.
Botzer, G., & Reiner, M. (2005). Imagery in physics learning – From physicists’ practice to naive
students’ understanding. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 147–
168). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bruner, J. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1–15.
Cheng, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2009). Towards a better utilization of diagrams in research into the
use of representative levels in chemical education. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple
representations in chemical education (pp. 55–73). Dordrecht: Springer.
Cohen, J.  (1988). Statistical power analysis fort the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Coletta, V. P., Phillips, J. A., & Steinert, J. J. (2007). Interpreting force concept inventory scores:
Normalized gain and SAT scores. Physical Review Special Topics  – Physics Education
Research, 3(1), 010106-1-5.
10  Representational Competence, Understanding of Experiments… 227

Ding, L., & Beichner, R. (2009). Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions.
Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020103.
Engelhardt, P. V. (2009). An introduction to classical test theory as applied to conceptual multiple-­
choice tests. In C. Henderson & K. A. Harper (Eds.), Getting started in PER. College Park:
American Association of Physics Teachers.
Fahrmeir, L., Kneib, T., & Lang, S. (2009). Regression. Modelle, Methoden und Anwendungen
[Regression. Models, methods and applications] (2nd Edn.). Berlin: Springer.
Fetherstonhaugh, T., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Students’ understanding of light and its properties:
Teaching to engender conceptual change. Science Education, 76(6), 653–672.
Feynman, R. (1990). The character of physical law. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). Learners’ knowledge in optics: Interpretation, structure and analy-
sis. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 57–88.
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z. (2004). Working memory skills and
educational attainment: Evidence from National Curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of
age. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–16.
Gilbert, J.  K., & Treagust, D. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education.
Berlin: Springer.
Göllner, R., Gollwitzer, M., Heider, J., Zaby, A., & Schröder, A. (2010). Auswertung von
Längsschnittdaten mit hierarchisch-linearen Modellen [Analysis of longitudinal data using
hierarchical linear modelling]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie
[Journal of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy], 39(3), 179–188.
Goldberg, F. M., & McDermott, L. C. (1987). An investigation of students’ understanding of the
real image formed by a converging lens or concave mirror. American Journal of Physics, 55(2),
108–119.
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student sur-
vey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics,
66(1), 64–74.
Hattie, A. C. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to achieve-
ment. London: Routledge.
Heck, R., Thomas, S., & Tabata, L. (2014). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with SPSS.
New York: Routledge.
Heywood, D. S. (2005). Primary trainee teachers’ learning and teaching about light: Some peda-
gogic implications for initial teacher training. International Journal of Science Teaching,
27(12), 1447–1475.
Hettmannsperger, R. (2015): Lernen mit multiplen Repräsentationen aus Experimenten: Ein
Beitrag zum Verstehen physikalischer Konzepte [Learning with multiple representations from
experiments: A contribution to understanding basic concepts in physics]. Wiesbaden: Springer
Verlag Sozialwissenschaften.
Hettmannsperger, R., Müller, A., Scheid, J., & Schnotz, W. (2014). Understanding basic con-
cepts in ray optics: A representational approach. In C.  P. Constantinou, N.  Papadouris,
& A.  Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), Science education research for evidence-based teach-
ing and coherence in learning. Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 conference. Retrieved
March 13, 2015, from http://www.esera.org/publications/esera-conference-proceedings/
science-education-research-for-evidence-/
Höffler, T.  N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-­
analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738.
Hoffmann, L., Häußler, P., & Peters-Haft, S. (1997). An den Interessen von Mädchen und Jungen
orientierter Physikunterricht. Ergebnisse eines BLK-Modellversuches [Taking into account
girls’ and boys’ needs and interests in physics teaching. Results form a BLK pilot project].
Kiel: Leibniz-Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN).
Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representa-
tional focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5–28.
228 A. Müller et al.

Kim, J., & Choi, H. (2002). Students’ cognitive conflict levels by provided quantitative demonstra-
tion and qualitative demonstration. Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference
2002, Boise, Idaho. Retrieved March 21, 2015, from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/
document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4340&DocID=1102
Klauer, K. J., & Leutner, D. (2007). Lehren und Lernen: Einführung in die Instruktionspsychologie
[Teaching and learning: Introduction to the psychology of instruction]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Kuhn, J.  (2010). Authentische Aufgaben im theoretischen Rahmen von Instruktions- und Lehr-­
Lern-­Forschung: Effektivität und Optimierung von Ankermedien für eine neue Aufgabenkultur
im Physikunterricht [Authentic tasks in the theoretical framework of research in teaching,
learning and instruction: Effectiveness and optimisation of anchor media for a new task culture
in physics classrooms]. Wiesbaden: Vieweg+Teubner.
Kunter, M., & Baumert, J.  (2013). The COACTIV research program on teachers’ professional
competence: Summary and discussion. In M.  Kunter, J.  Baumert, W.  Blum, U.  Klusmann,
S.  Krauss, & M.  Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and
professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project (pp.  345–368).
New York: Springer.
Langley, D., Ronen, M., & Eylon, B.-S. (1997). Light propagation and visual patterns: Preinstruction
learners’ conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 399–424.
Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S. S., Kim, J. W., Kwon, H. G., & Park, H. K. (2003). Development of
an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science classes. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 40, 585–603.
Leisen, J. (1998). Förderung des Sprachlernens durch den Wechsel von Symbolisierungsformen
im Physikunterricht. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften Physik, 47(2), 9–13.
Liepmann, D., Beauducel, A., Brocke, B., & Amthauer, R. (2007). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000
R.(I-S-T 2000 R). [Intelligence structure test 2000 R]. (2nd edn.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A
critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.
Marzano, R.  J., Pickering, D.  J., & Pollock, J.  E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Olson, J. F., Berger, D. R., Milne, D., Stanco, G. M. (Eds.). (2008).
TIMSS 2007 Encyclopedia: A guide to mathematics and science education around the world
(Volumes 1 and 2). Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Retrieved
February 26, 2015, from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/encyclopedia.html
Nieminen, P., Savinainen, A., & Viiri, J. (2012). Relations between representational consistency,
conceptual understanding of the force concept, and scientific reasoning. Physical Review
Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010123. Retrieved March 21, from http://
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010123
Piaget, J.  (1977). The role of action in the development of thinking. In W.  F. Overton & J.  M.
Gallagher (Eds.), Knowledge and development (Vol. 1, pp. 17–42). New York: Plenum Press.
Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2012). A systematic characterisation of expository animations.
Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 781–794.
Plötzner, R., & Spada, H. (1998). Inhalt, Struktur und Anwendung von Physikwissen: Eine psy-
chologische Perspektive [Content, structure and application of physics knowledge: A psycho-
logical perspective]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 4(2), 81–100.
Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Intuitive physics reasoning: A
commitment to substance–based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 1–34.
Rheinberg, F., & Wendland, M. (2003). Veränderung der Lernmotivation in Mathematik und Physik:
Eine Komponentenanalyse und der Einfluss elterlicher sowie schulischer Kontextfaktoren.
Abschlussbericht zum DFG-Projekt [Changes in learning motivation in mathematics and
physics: A component analysis and the influence of context factors in families and schools.
Final report of the respective project funded by the German Research Association]. Potsdam:
University, Institute of Psychology.
10  Representational Competence, Understanding of Experiments… 229

Scheid, J. (2013). Multiple Repräsentationen, Verständnis physikalischer Experimente und kogni-

tive Aktivierung: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung der Aufgabenkultur [Multiple representations,
understanding experiments and cognitive activation: A contribution to task culture]. Studien
zum Physik- und Chemielernen, Vol. 151. Berlin: Logos Verlag.
Scheid, J., Hettmannsperger, R., Müller, A., Kuhn, J., & Schnotz, W. (2014). Fostering the under-
standing of scientific experiments and phenomena through representational analysis tasks.
In C. P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), E-book proceedings of the
ESERA 2013 conference: Science education research for evidence-based teaching and coher-
ence in learning. Nicosia: European Science Education Research Association.
Schnotz, W. (2006). Conceptual change. In D.  H. Rost (Ed.), Handwörterbuch pädagogische
Psychologie (3rd ed., pp. 75–81). Weinheim: Beltz, PVU.
Sell, K. S., Herbert, B. E., Stuessy, C. L., & Schielack, J. (2006). Supporting student conceptual
model development of complex earth system through the use of multiple representations and
inquiry. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(3), 396–407.
Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to
think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform
mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.
Taber, K.  S. (2009). Learning at the symbolic level. In J.  K. Gilbert & D.  F. Treagust (Eds.),
Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 75–108). Dordrecht: Springer.
Thagard, P.  R. (1991). Philosophical and computational models of explanation. Philosophical
Studies, 64, 87–104.
Thorley, N. R., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Conflict within dyadic interactions as a stimulant for
conceptual change in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 9(2), 203–216.
Tsui, C., & Treagust, D. (Eds.). (2013). Multiple representations in biological education.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Tymms, P. (2004). Effect sizes in multilevel models. In I. Schagen & K. Elliot (Eds.), But what
does it mean? The use of effect sizes in educational research (pp. 55–66). London: National
Foundation for Educational Research.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing representations to
learn in science. Rotterdam: Sense.
van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instruc-
tional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 891–897.
van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & de Jong, T. (Eds.). (1998). Learning with
multiple representations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., de Jong, T., & Elen, J. (2010). Use of external representations in
reasoning and problem solving. New York: Routledge.
Vosniadou, S. (2013). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: Preconceptions,
misconceptions and synthetic models. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second
international handbook of science education (pp. 119–130). Berlin: Springer.
Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learn-
ing in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40, 65–80.
Wiesner, H. (1986). Schülervorstellungen und Lernschwierigkeiten im Bereich der Optik.
Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht, 34(13), S. 25–29.
Zimrot, R., & Ashkenazi, G. (2007). Interactive lecture demonstrations: A tool for exploring and
enhancing conceptual change. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 197–121.