Students' mental load, stress, and performance when working with symbolic or symbolic–textual molecular representations

• Published in: Journal of research in science teaching Vol. 55; no. 8; pp. 1162 - 1187
• Main Authors: Minkley, Nina, Kärner, Tobias, Jojart, Atila, Nobbe, Lasse, Krell, Moritz
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Reston Wiley-Blackwell 01.10.2018; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Cognitive Processes; Concept Formation; Control Groups; Difficulty Level; Experimental Groups; Heart rate; mental load; molecular representations; Molecular Structure; preference; Preferences; Salivary cortisol; Science Education; Science Instruction; Science Tests; Scientific Concepts; Stress; Stress Variables; Students; Symbols; Task Analysis; Task performance; Teachers; Variability
• ISSN: 0022-4308; 1098-2736
• DOI: 10.1002/tea.21446

In science education, representations are necessary inter alia for the understanding of relationships between structures and systems. However, several studies have identified difficulties of students when working with representations. In the present study, we investigated students' responses (regarding their preference, test performance, mental load (ML), and stress) toward two kinds of representations: symbolic representations, which only use symbols, versus combined symbolic–textual representations, which additionally comprise textual elements. Therefore, students were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: one group worked on test tasks accompanied by symbolic representations, and the others worked on the same tasks, but with symbolic–textual representations. Thereafter, the students' test performance and ML were assessed. The level of perceived stress and the salivary cortisol concentration were measured before and after the test and again a few minutes later. Additionally, heart rate variability parameters were assessed continuously. We found a strong preference of the test version with symbolic representations. Additionally, the students showed better test performance and lower ML when they worked with symbolic representations. However, the level of perceived stress was comparable between both groups and there was no strong physiological stress response: The cortisol concentration decreased in both groups and the heart rate was relatively similar. However, during the second half of the test, we observed a significantly higher ratio between low and high heartbeat frequencies in the group with symbolic–textual representations and we found an indirect influence of the kind of representation on test performance through its effect on ML. The poorer test performance and higher ML in connection with symbolic–textual representations confirm previous studies, which found that symbolic–textual representations pose major problems for students. Thus, teachers should enable students to understand symbolic–textual representations and consider carefully whether they can use symbolic representations instead, especially when they teach complex content.