Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Development of an Integrative Learning Unit to Enhance Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Dissolution and Their Reasoning Sophistication

Thanapol Pittayapiboolpong 1,
Pratchayapong Yasri 1 *
1 Mahidol University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 1, Issue 3, September 2018, pp. 283-309
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 899 DOWNLOADS: 410 Publication date: 15 Sep 2018
ABSTRACT
Chemistry education requires establishing connections between chemistry concepts and learners’ experiences encountered in the real world. However, due to the abstract nature of chemistry which is regularly displayed in an isolated-fashion in classrooms, this results in the difficulty when learners utilize knowledge relationally and rationally. To ease this learning issue, a conceptually integrative learning unit incorporating chemical concepts of dissolution was developed, involving polarity, concentration, and chemical structure. The purposes of this study are three-fold. The first is to cognitively embrace students in the content in terms of factual and applied knowledge. The second is placed on the reasoning sophistication, which plays a crucial role in problem solving, decision making, and data interpretation, by classifying it into three levels: Intuition, hybrid, and analytics.   The third is to explore cognitive authority reflecting forms of knowledge which students lean towards when making decision: Direct experiences (first-hand knowledge) and learning from other people (second-hand knowledge). This research study was conducted in a quantitative manner based on a pretest-posttest design with 79 upper secondary students. The results showed that there was a statistically significant increase in students’ conceptual understanding in both factual and applied knowledge, after participating in the developed learning unit. In addition, over 20% of the students exhibited more sophisticated reasoning skills (i.e. hybrid or analytic level of reasoning). Furthermore, forms of cognitive authority underpinning the reasoning skills shifted from second-hand knowledge towards first-hand knowledge after participating in the learning unit, which is considered as a more scientifically appropriate form of knowledge.
KEYWORDS
Cognitive Authority, Dissolution, Integrative Chemistry, Reasoning Sophistication.
CITATION (APA)
Pittayapiboolpong, T., & Yasri, P. (2018). Development of an Integrative Learning Unit to Enhance Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Dissolution and Their Reasoning Sophistication. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(3), 283-309. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.133
REFERENCES
  1. Bada, D., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism Learning Theory: A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
  2. Belova, N., & Eilks, I. (2015). Learning with and about advertising in chemistry education with a lesson plan on natural cosmetics – a case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 578–588.
  3. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain (Vol. 19, p. 56). New York: David McKay Co Inc.
  4. Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878.
  5. Bretz, S. L. (2001). Novak’s theory of education: Human constructivism and meaningful learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107.
  6. Carter, C. S., & Brickhouse, N. W. (1989). What makes chemistry difficult? Alternate perceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(3), 223.
  7. Cervellati, R., & Perugini, D. (1981). The understanding of the atomic orbital concept by Italian high school students. Journal of Chemical Education, 58(7), 568.
  8. Chang, R. (2008). General chemistry: The essential concepts. Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill.
  9. Cooper, M. M., Kouyoumdjian, H., & Underwood, S. M. (2016). Investigating Students’ Reasoning about Acid–Base Reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(10), 1703-1712.
  10. Cullipher, S., Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2015). Reasoning about benefits, costs, and risks of chemical substances: Mapping different levels of sophistication. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 377–392.
  11. Ebenezer, J. V. (1992). Making chemistry learning more meaningful. European Journal of Education, 69(6), 464–467.
  12. Elmas, R., & Geban, Ö. (2016). The effect of context based chemistry instruction on 9th grade students’ understanding of cleaning agent topic and their attitude toward environment. Egitim Ve Bilim, 41(185), 33–50.
  13. Fricker, E. (2006). Second-hand knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(3), 592–618.
  14. Furió, C., & Calatayud, M. L. (1996). Difficulties with the geometry and polarity of molecules: Beyond misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(1), 36–41.
  15. Genc, M. (2013). The effect of analogy-based teaching on students' achievement and students' views about analogies. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 14(2).
  16. Hallinger, P., & Lee, M. (2011). A decade of education reform in Thailand: broken promise or impossible dream? Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(2), 139-158.
  17. Heisterkamp, K., & Talanquer, V. (2015). Interpreting data: The hybrid mind. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(12), 1988–1995.
  18. Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  19. IUPAC. Compendium of chemical terminology, 2nd ed. (the "Gold Book"). Compiled by A. D. McNaught and A. Wilkinson. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford (1997). XML on-line corrected version: http://goldbook.iupac.org (2006) created by M. Nic, J. Jirat, B. Kosata; updates compiled by A. Jenkins. ISBN 0-9678550-9-8.
  20. Jordan, B. (1997). Authoritative and its construction. In R. E. David-Floyd & C. F. Sargent (Eds.), Childbirth and authoritative knowledge: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp.55-79). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  21. Kay, K., & Greenhill, V. (2010). Twenty-first century students need 21st century skills. In Wan, G., & Gut, D. M. (Eds.), Bringing Schools into the 21st Century (pp 41–65). Dordrecht, London: Springer.
  22. Khang, G. N., & Sai, C. L., & Greca, I. M. (1992). Students’ learning difficulties on covalent bonding and structure concepts. Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 58–65.
  23. Kiliç, Ö., & Topsakal, Ü. U. (2011). The effectiveness of using student and teacher centered analogies on the development of the students' cognitive and affective skills. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching 12(2).
  24. Mahaffy, P. (2006). Moving chemistry education into 3D: A tetrahedral metaphor for understanding chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 49–55.
  25. McKenzie, P. J. (2003). Justifying cognitive authority decisions: Discursive strategies of information seekers. The Library Quarterly, 73(3), 261–288.
  26. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Essex: Pearson.
  27. Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. SIU Press.
  28. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.
  29. Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget’s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology.
  30. Renner, J. W., & Marek, E. A. (1990). An educational theory base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 241-246.
  31. Richmond, J. E. (2007). Bringing Critical Thinking to the Education of Developing Country Professionals. International Education Journal, 8(1), 1-29.
  32. Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145–161.
  33. Savolainen, R. (2007). Media credibility and cognitive authority. The case of seeking orienting information. Informationresearch, 12(3), 319.
  34. Serrano, A., Santos, F. M., & Greca, I. M. (2004). Teaching ionic solvation structure with a Monte Carlo liquid simulation program. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(9), 1322–1329.
  35. Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: a learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–23.
  36. Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish science education, 4(2), 2.
  37. Sjöström, J., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Humanizing chemistry education: from simple contextualization to multifaceted problematization. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1125–1131.
  38. Talanquer, V. (2006). Commonsense Chemistry: A Model for Understanding Students' Alternative Conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 811.
  39. Talanquer, V. (2010). Exploring Dominant Types of explanations built by general chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2393–2412.
  40. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195.
  41. Talanquer, V. (2013). Chemistry education: ten facets to shape us. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(7), 832-838.
  42. Wiemer‐Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive science, 29(5), 719-736.
  43. Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80-83.
  44. Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: an inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport: Greenwood Press.
  45. Zoller, U. (1999). Scaling-up of higher-order cognitive skills-oriented college chemistry teaching: An action-oriented research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 583-596.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.