
The Effects of Visualizations on Linguistically Diverse Students' Understanding of Energy and Matter in Life Science
Ryoo, Kihyun; Bedell, Kristin (2017). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v54 n10 p1274-1301. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1160721
-
examining319Students, grade7
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Dynamic visualizations - Ryoo & Bedell (2017))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because at least one supplemental finding is rated meets WWC standards without reservations but the study does not have main findings.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed assessment of student understanding of energy and matter |
Dynamic visualizations - Ryoo & Bedell (2017) vs. Static visualizations - Ryoo & Bedell (2017) |
0 Days |
English language learners;
|
4.07 |
3.59 |
Yes |
|
||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
48% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 16 seventh-grade mainstream science classrooms in two public, low-income middle schools. The schools served growing populations of students who spoke a language other than English at home.
Study sample
The study randomly assigned 331 seventh-grade students ages 13 to 14 to participate in the intervention (166 students) or to be part of the comparison group (165 students). The analysis included 319 of those students. Specifically, the analysis sample included 152 English learners, defined in this study as students who mainly spoke a language other than English with their parents at home and who were able to communicate in everyday English, and 167 non-English learners. Students received instruction in regular science classrooms, and the study focused on learning about energy and matter in photosynthesis and cellular respiration. At one of the two schools included in the study sample, the student population was 69 percent Hispanic, 13 percent African American, and 11 percent White, and 88 percent of students were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch. At the other school in the sample, the student population was 31 percent Hispanic, 9 percent African American, and 56 percent White, and 47 percent of students were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The intervention used interactive dynamic visualizations within a single unit of an online learning program called Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE). The unit was focused on helping students understand how energy and matter change during photosynthesis and cellular respiration. Students worked through six online inquiry activities in the WISE unit, and the dynamic visualizations showed motion and change over time, such as how light energy is transformed and how molecules are broken apart and rearranged. The activities asked students to make predictions before viewing the visualizations and then reflect on what they learned afterward using evidence from what they saw. Students worked in pairs during their regular science instruction over about two weeks.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group completed the same WISE unit on the same life science topics, but they used interactive static visualizations instead of interactive dynamic visualizations. The static visualizations presented the same content and written explanations as the intervention, but they used still images rather than showing motion. Students also worked in pairs, answered prediction and reflection questions, and completed the unit during regular science instruction over about two weeks.
Support for implementation
Before the study began, participating teachers received professional development on how to use the web-based inquiry environment, how visualizations could help linguistically diverse students learn science, how to guide student discussion, and how to give feedback on student work. During the study, at least one member of the study team was present each day to observe instruction and provide ongoing coaching and support to teachers.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).