An Evaluation of a Teaching Intervention to Promote Students’ Ability to Use Multiple Levels of Representation When Describing and Explaining Chemical Reactions
Tóm tắt
Students are generally known to memorise and regurgitate chemical equations without sufficient understanding of the changes that occur at the particulate level. In addition, they often fail to recognise the significance of the symbols and formulas that are used to represent chemical reactions. This article describes an evaluation of the ability of 65 Grade 9 students (15–16 years old) from a Singapore secondary school to describe and explain seven types of chemical reactions using macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations. The study was conducted over nine months using a supplementary teaching program with particular emphasis on the use of multiple levels of representation to describe and explain chemical reactions. Students’ proficiency in the use of multiple levels of representation was assessed at the end of the course using a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument that was previously developed by the authors. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the instructional program, the instrument was also administered to another group of 76 students who were not involved in the supplementary instructional program. The efficacy of the program was evident from the significantly improved scores on the diagnostic instrument of the former group of students. In addition, several student conceptions in the use of multiple levels of representation were identified that could assist teachers in their planning and implementation of classroom instruction.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70, 549–563.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1269–1298.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2006). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64–66.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualisation of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, 25, 89–92.
Bodner, G. M. (1992). Refocusing the general chemistry curriculum: Why changing the curriculum may not be enough. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 186–190.
Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2004). Diagnostic assessment of secondary students’ use of three levels of representation to explain simple chemical reactions. Unpublished dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2005, July). Diagnostic assessment of secondary students’ use of three levels of representation to explain simple chemical reactions. Paper presented at the 36th annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2006, April). Development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument to evaluate secondary students’ multiple representations in chemistry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science studies. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.
Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Vol. 1 (pp. 233–248). London: Kluwer.
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.
Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particle nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.
Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 611–628.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.
Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translations of the representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883–903.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 117–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lien, A. J. (1971). Measurement and evaluation of learning (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students’ understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1077–1096.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seddon, G. M., & Eniaiyeju, P. A. (1986). The understanding of pictorial depth cues, and the ability to visualise the rotation of three-dimensional structures in diagrams. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4(1), 29–37.
Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 141–159.
Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning in science in the schools: Research reforming practice, Vol. 1 (pp. 327–346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Treagust, D. F. (2006). Diagnostic assessment in science as a means to improving teaching, learning and retention. In UniServe science – symposium proceedings: Assessment in science teaching and learning (pp. 1–9). Sydney, NSW: Uniserve Science.
Treagust, D. F., & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities, Vol. 8 (pp. 239–267). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Overview: Research on students’ preinstructional conceptions – The driving force for improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 1–14). New York: Teachers College Press.
Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding: Student conceptions research, & changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(3), 14–21.
Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 449–459.