Visual Modeling as a Pedagogical Strategy in a Nutritional Physiology Animal Science Course
Keywords:
Visual modeling, model-based reasoning, functional diagram, dual coding theory, drawing-to-learnAbstract
Nutritional physiology includes a number of complex biological and biochemical processes that can be difficult for students to grasp. It is our belief that students’ ability to visually model and explain these processes will increase understanding, retention of knowledge, and their ability to integrate and apply complex nutritional concepts. Creating visual models as a tool for learning has been used extensively in courses like physics and chemistry, but is underutilized as a science process skill in biological sciences. Creation of visual models helps to make learning visible and to simplify complex concepts. Drawing-to-learn could have great utility in describing and deepening comprehension of physiological processes like nutrient digestion and utilization. A learning activity was prepared where students created hand-drawn diagrams of nutrient digestion, absorption, and basic utilization to aid in understanding of course concepts. We evaluated the effectiveness of the learning activity through reflections and Likert scale surveys. Creating visual models of nutrient digestion increased student confidence in explaining complex nutritional processes and their ability to integrate and apply their knowledge appropriately. This activity was made more effective with the inclusion of a writing component that asked students to combine both visual and verbal cognitive processes to increase comprehension.
Downloads
References
Ainsworth, S. (2010). Improving learning by drawing. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Volume 2, p 167-168.
Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. The journal of the learning sciences, 11(1), 25-61. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_2
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096-1097. https:doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153
Ainsworth, S., & Th Loizou, A. (2003). The effects of self‐explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive science, 27(4), 669-681. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2704_5
Aleven, V. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer‐based cognitive tutor. Cognitive science, 26(2), 147-179. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2602_1
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC.
Arneson, J. B., & Offerdahl, E. G. (2018). Visual literacy in Bloom: Using Bloom’s taxonomy to support visual learning skills. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar7. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0178
Beveridge, M., & Parkins, E. (1987). Visual representation in analogical problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 230-237. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197721
Bobek, E., & Tversky, B. (2016). Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 1(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0031-6
Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The journal of the learning sciences, 6(3), 271-315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1
Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive science, 18(3), 439-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational psychology review, 3(3), 149-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076
Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. Issues in education research, 289-298.
Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and instruction, 9(4), 343-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00051-6
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), 671-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.
Damyanov, I., & Tsankov, N. (2018). The role of infographics for the development of skills for cognitive modeling in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(1), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i01.7541
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational researcher, 32(1), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A., Polakowski, N., Gunderson, B., Shultz, G. V., & Gere, A. R. (2021). Utilizing Peer Review and Revision in STEM to Support the Development of Conceptual Knowledge Through Writing. Written Communication, https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211006038
Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student‐generated diagrams versus student‐generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<39::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-I
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Gottdenker, J. (2005). Model building for conceptual change. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1-2), 15-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820500173292
Köse, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: Using drawings as a research method. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(2), 283-293.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive science, 11(1), 65-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80026-5
Luckie, D., Harrison, S. H., & Ebert-May, D. (2011). Model-based reasoning: using visual tools to reveal student learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(1), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00016.2010
Michael, J. (2007). What makes physiology hard for students to learn? Results of a faculty survey. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(1), 34-40. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00057.2006
National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press.
Nersessian, N. J. (2015). Conceptual innovation on the frontiers of science. In L. Eric Margolis Stephen, E. Margolis, & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 455-474). MIT Press.
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
Paivio, A., & Clark, J. (2006). Dual coding theory and education. Draft chapter presented at the conference on Pathways to Literacy Achievement for High Poverty Children at The University of Michigan School of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076
Paoletti, G. (2005). Writing-to-learn and graph-drawing as aids of the integration of text and graphs. In Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing (pp. 587-597). Springer. https://doi 10.1007/978-1-4020-2739-0_40
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. ERIC.
Pelaez, N. J. (2001). Calibrated peer review in general education undergraduate human physiology. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Costa Mesa, CA,
Quillin, K., & Thomas, S. (2015). Drawing-to-learn: a framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128
Reiser, B. J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 44-62). Cambridge University Press.
Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., & Thompson Jr, R. J. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: a community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(1), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064
Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive science, 19(1), 97-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(95)90005-5
Thaiss, C. J., & Zawacki, T. M. (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic disciplines: Research on the academic writing life. Boynton/Cook Portsmouth, NH.
Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational psychology review, 17(4), 285-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3
Wilson, T. E., & Barrett, K. E. (2021). Gastrointestinal jabberwocky to bioengineering design: using function diagrams to teach physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 45(2), 264-268. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00240.2020
Yoon, S. A. (2018). Complex systems and the learning sciences: Implications for learning, theory, and methodologies. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 157-166). Routledge.
Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive science, 18(1), 87-122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1801_3
