In this study, we investigated whether the understanding of the particulate nature of matter by students was improved by allowing them to design and evaluate molecular animations of chemical phenomena. We developed Chemation, a learner‐centered animation tool, to allow seventh‐grade students to construct flipbook‐like simple animations to show molecular models and dynamic processes. Eight classes comprising 271 students were randomly assigned to three treatments in which students used Chemation to (1) design, interpret, and evaluate animations, (2) only design and interpret animations, or (3) only view and interpret teacher‐made animations. We employed 2‐factor analysis of covariance and calculated effect sizes to examine the impact of the three treatments on student posttest performances and on student‐generated animations and interpretations during class. We used the pretest data as a covariate to reduce a potential bias related to students' prior knowledge on their learning outcomes. The results indicate that designing animations coupled with peer evaluation is effective at improving student learning with instructional animation. On the other hand, the efficacy of allowing students to only design animations without peer evaluation is questionable compared with allowing students to view animations. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 94:73–94, 2010

In this study, we reviewed 76 journal articles on employing drawing assessment as a research tool in science education. Findings from the systematic review suggest four justifications for using drawing as a type of research tool, including assessment via drawing as (a) an alternative method considering young participants’ verbal or writing abilities, and affective or economic reasons, (b) a unique method that can reveal aspects not easily measured by other methods, (c) a major method that reflects characteristics of science subjects, and (d) a formative assessment to diagnose students’ ideas to benefit their learning. Furthermore, five research trends of studies using drawing as assessment tools are identified, including: (a) students’ conceptions of scientists from the Draw-a-Scientist-Test (DAST) and evolving studies, (b) students’ understanding or mental models of science concepts, (c) participants’ conceptions of science learning or teaching, (d) students’ inquiry abilities and modelling skills via drawing, and (e) technology to support drawing. For each trend, we synthesised and commented on the current findings. A framework conceptualising phases and issues when designing research and instruments employing drawing assessments is proposed. The review provides insights into the design and future direction of research employing drawing assessments in science education.