Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript This is an Accepted Manuscript, which has been through the Royal Society of Chemistry peer review process and has been accepted for publication. Accepted Manuscripts are published online shortly after acceptance, before technical editing, formatting and proof reading. Using this free service, authors can make their results available to the community, in citable form, before we publish the edited article. We will replace this Accepted Manuscript with the edited and formatted Advance Article as soon as it is available. You can find more information about Accepted Manuscripts in the Information for Authors. Please note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the text and/or graphics, which may alter content. The journal’s standard Terms & Conditions and the Ethical guidelines still apply. In no event shall the Royal Society of Chemistry be held responsible for any errors or omissions in this Accepted Manuscript or any consequences arising from the use of any information it contains. www.rsc.org/cerp Page 1 of 16 ChemistryPlease Education do not Researchadjust margins and Practice 1 2 3 4 Chemistry Education Research and Practice 5 6 7 ARTICLE 8 9 10 11 Enhancing undergraduate chemistry learning by helping students 12 13 make connections among multiple graphical representations Manuscript 14 Received 00th January 20xx, a Accepted 00th January 20xx Martina A. Rau 15 16 DOI: 10.1039/x0xx00000x Multiple representations are ubiquitous in chemistry education. To benefit from multiple representations, students have to make connections between them. However, connection making is a difficult task for students. Prior research shows that 17 www.rsc.org/ 18 supporting connection making enhances students’ learning in math and science domains. Most prior research has focused 19 on supporting one type of connection-making process: conceptually making sense of connections among representations. 20 Yet, recent research suggests that a second type of connection-making process plays a role in students’ learning: 21 perceptual fluency in translating among representations. I hypothesized that combining support for both conceptual sense Accepted 22 making of connections and for perceptual fluency in connection making leads to higher learning gains in general chemistry 23 among undergraduate students. I tested this hypothesis in two experiments with altogether N = 158 undergraduate 24 students using an intelligent tutoring system for chemistry atomic structure and bonding. Results suggest that the combination of conceptual sense-making support and perceptual fluency-building support for connection making is 25 effective for students with low prior knowledge, whereas students with high prior knowledge benefit most from receiving 26 perceptual fluency-building support alone. This finding suggests that students’ learning in chemistry can be enhanced if 27 instruction provides support for connection making among multiple representations in a way that tailors to their specific 28 learning needs. Practice 29 30 et al. , 2000; Höst , et al. , 2012; Hinze , et al. , 2013). For exam- 31 Introduction ple, a student who is learning about bonding may be asked to 32 and In chemistry, students have to learn concepts that are inher- use the representations in Fig. 2 to predict how ethyne will re- 33 ently visuo-spatial. To make these concepts accessible to stu- act with other molecules. To do so, the student needs to con- 34 dents, chemistry instruction tends to heavily rely on the use of nect the triple bond shown in the Lewis structure and the ball- 35 graphical representations (Bodner and Domin, 2000; Taber, and-stick figure to the red region in the electrostatic potential 36 2009; De Jong and Taber, 2014). Graphical representations are map (EPM), and infer that this molecule is unstable. Airey and 37 instructional materials that use visuo-spatial elements to de- Lindner (2009) refer to this ability to make connections as 38 pict domain-relevant concepts (as opposed to text or symbols). “apresentation”–as the ability to “spontaneously infer the presence of further facets of a disciplinary way of knowing 39 Furthermore, graphical representations are important tools Research 40 that chemists use to think, to solve problems, and to com- over and above those made available through the mode a stu- 41 municate–in other words, graphical representations are an in- dent has been presented with” (p. 10). Hence, the ability to 42 tegral part of discourse within the chemistry make connections among multiple graphical representations 43 pline (Kozma , et al. , 2000; Schönborn and Anderson, 2006; enables students to participate in discourse and practices that 44 Airey and Linder, 2009). Therefore, representational compe- are common in scientific and professional practices that chem- 45 tences are key to students’ learning in chemistry (Wu , et al. , istry students aspire to join. Because graphical representations 46 2001; Kozma and Russell, 2005; Justi , et al. , 2009; Linenberger are the visual language through which instruction conveys 47 and Bretz, 2012). chemistry concepts, students learn domain knowledge by mak- 48 In particular, students’ learning success depends on their abil- ing connections among graphical representations (Schönborn Education and Anderson, 2006; Airey and Linder, 2009). 49 ity to make connections among graphical representations. Fig. 50 1 shows examples of graphical representations typically used 51 to depict atoms; Fig. 2 shows examples of representations 52 used to illustrate bonding in molecules (Bowen, 1990; Kozma , 53 54 55 Fig. 1. Representations of an oxygen atom: Lewis structure, Bohr model, energy 56 diagram, orbital diagram. Chemistry 57 58 59 60 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 20xx J. Name ., 2013, 00 , 1-3 | 1 Please do not adjust margins ChemistryPlease Education do not Researchadjust margins and Practice Page 2 of 16 ARTICLE Journal Name 1 2 aspect of domain expertise because it frees “cognitive head 3 room” to engage in higher-order conceptual thinking about 4 domain-relevant concepts (Goldstone and Barsalou, 1998; 5 Gibson, 2000; Kellman and Garrigan, 2009). Cognitive theories 6 of learning suggest that perceptual fluency is the result of non- 7 Fig. 2. Representations of an ethyne molecule: Lewis structure, ball-and-stick figure, space-filling model, electrostatic potential map (EPM). verbal inductive learning processes (Richman , et al. , 1996; 8 Koedinger , et al. , 2012). Inductive processes are learning pro- 9 Yet, making such connections is a difficult and cognitively de- cesses that students engage in when they learn to discrimi- 10 manding task for students (Johnstone, 1991; Taber, 2013). In- nate, classify, categorize, and become more accurate and effi- 11 deed, undergraduate students’ frequent failure to make con- cient in doing so (Koedinger , et al. , 2012). Perceptual learning 12 nections among multiple representations has been found to processes are considered to be non-verbal because they do 13 jeopardize their learning of important chemistry con- not rely on explicit reasoning (Kellman and Garrigan, 2009; Manuscript 14 cepts (Dori and Barak, 2001; Talanquer, 2013). Even Ph.D. stu- Kellman and Massey, 2013). They are implicit because they 15 dents in chemistry lack crucial representational competences happen unintentionally and unconsciously (Shanks, 2005), 16 and focus on surface-level features of representations when through experience with many examples (Gibson, 1969; 17 asked to explain reactions (Strickland , et al. , 2010). Unfortu- Richman , et al. , 1996; Gibson, 2000; Airey and Linder, 2009; 18 nately, there is also evidence that instructors tend to oversti- Kellman and Garrigan, 2009). Recent research in educational 19 mate students’ ability to make connections among graphical psychology shows that providing perceptual trainings that 20 representations (Schönborn and Anderson, 2006; Uttal and support students’ acquisition of perceptual fluency in connec- 21 O’Doherty, 2008; Airey and Linder, 2009). Hence, supporting tion making enhances their learning in math and Accepted 22 students in learning to make connections among multiple ence (Kellman , et al. , 2009; Massey , et al. , 2011). 23 graphical representations is a major goal in chemistry educa- Thus, the educational psychology literature suggests that both 24 tion (Cheng and Gilbert, 2009; Talanquer, 2013). A number of conceptual sense making of connections and perceptual fluen- 25 studies in chemistry education indicate that students’ learning cy in connection making play a role in students’ learning. This 26 can be enhanced by providing students with connection- is in line with the chemistry education literature, which also 27 making activities (Davidowitz and Chittleborough, 2009; Lux- suggest that both conceptual sense making and perceptual ford , et al. , 2011; Linenberger and Bretz, 2012). fluency are important aspects of students’ learning (Wu , et al. , 28 Practice Most prior research on connection making has focused on 29 2001; Kozma and Russell, 2005; Justi , et al. , 2009). Empirical supporting only one type of connection-making ability; name- 30 evidence for the notion that conceptual sense making and per- ly, conceptual sense making of connections (Kozma and Rus- ceptual fluency in connection making are distinguishable rep- 31 sell, 2005; Stieff, 2005; Bodemer and Faust, 2006; van der Meij resentational competences comes from a factor analysis on

Load more