Examining Senior High School Students’ Ability in Constructing Scientific Explanation of Galvanic Cell
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims at enhancing students’ ability to construct scientific explanations of an electrochemistry content: galvanic cell. The teaching strategy was designed based on Vygotsky’s (1978) internalization process, Johnstone’s (1991) chemical representations, and two explanation models: the deductive nomological (DN) model proposed by Hempel and Oppenheim (1948) and the claim-evidence-reasoning (CER) model proposed by McNeill (2006). The critical action research processes were employed as the methodology by the first author researched on his teaching to do the self-study research and reflective-based research. Participants consist of fifty-nine students from two senior high schools in different academic years. Students’ worksheets were analyzed to clarify their ability to construct scientific explanations. Also, classroom observations, student interviews, and opinions from two critical friends in each school were analyzed. The findings showed how students expressed their explanations through macroscopic, sub-microscopic, and symbolic representations. Likewise, the development of the educational media and the teaching strategy was shown.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Adadan, E. (2014). Investigating the influence of pre-service chemistry teachers’ understanding of the particle nature of matter on their conceptual understanding of solution chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 219-238.
Ahtee, M., Asunta, T., & Palm, H. (2002). Student Teachers’ Problems in Teaching Electrolysis with a Key Demonstration. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(3), 317-326.
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to Learn in Science. Science, 333, 1096-1097.
Antonoglou, L.D., Charistos, N.D., & Sigalas, M.P. (2011). Design, development and implementation of a technology enhanced hybrid course on molecular symmetry: Students’ outcomes and attitudes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(4), 454-468.
Areljung, S., Skoog, M. & Sundberg, B. (2022). Teaching for Emergent Disciplinary Drawing in Science? Comparing Teachers’ and Children’s Ways of Representing Science Content in Early Childhood Classrooms. Research in Science Education, 52, 909–926.
Aydin, S., Friedrichsen, P.M., Boz, Y., & Hanuscin, D. (2014). Examination of the topic-specific nature of pedagogical content knowledge in teaching electrochemical cells and nuclear reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 658-674.
Berg, A., Orraryd, D., Pettersson, A. J., & Hultén, M. (2019). Representational challenges in animated chemistry: self-generated animations as a means to encourage students’ reflections on sub-micro processes in laboratory exercises. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(4), 710-737.
Bleicher, R.E., Tobin, K.G., & McRobbie, C.J. (2003). Opportunities to Talk Science in High School Chemistry Classroom. Research in Science Education, 33, 319-339.
Brandriet, A.R. & Bretz, S.L. (2014). Measuring meta-ignorance through the lens of confidence: examining students’ redox misconceptions about oxidation numbers, charge, and electron transfer. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 729-746.
Brown, T.L., LeMay, J. H. E., Bursten, B.E., Murphy, C.J., & Woodward, P.M. (2022). Chemistry – The Central Science. LibreTexts.org.
Bruner, J.S. (1962). Introduction. In Vygotsky, L.S. Thought and Language. (pp. V-X). 2nded. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T.
Carroll, M., Chaparro, M., Rebensky, S., Carmody, K., Mehta, R., Pittorie, W. (2021). Adapting to the Times: Examining Adaptive Instructional Strategies in Preferred and Non-preferred Class Types. In: Sottilare, R.A., Schwarz, J. (eds) Adaptive Instructional Systems. Design and Evaluation. (pp. 519-536). Springer.
Commons, M. L. (2007). Changing stage for students, teachers and schools. Behevioral Development, 13(1), 30-34.
Dangur, V., Avargil, S., Peskin, U., & Dori, Y.J. (2014). Learning quantum chemistry via a visualconceptual approach: students’ bidirectional textual and visual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(3), 297-310.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, Philadephia: Open University.
Dumon, A. & Mzoughi-Khadhraoui, I. (2014). Teaching chemical change modeling to Tunisian students: an ‘‘expanded chemistry triplet’’ for analyzing teachers’ discourse. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 70-80.
Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Finish National Board of Education. (2003). National Core Curriculum For Upper Secondary Schools 2003. Vammala: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy.
Garnett, P.J., & Treagust D.F. (1992a). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: electric circuits and oxidation-reduction equations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 121–142.
Garnett P.J. & Treagust D.F. (1992b), Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1079–1099.
Ghosh, S.K. (2022). Evolving strategies in whirlwind mode: The changing face of anatomy education during Covid-19 pandemic. Anatomical Sciences Education, 1-17.
Gilbert, J.K. & Treagust, D. (Eds). (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. [n.p.]: Springer.
Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2020). Students’ competence in translating between different types of chemical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1), 307-330.
Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hamza, K.M. (2013). Distractions in the School Science Laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43,1477-1499.
Hamza, K.M. & Wickman, P. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92(1), 141-164.
Hamza, K.M. & Wickman, P. (2009). Beyond Explanation: What else do students need to understand science? Science Education, 93(6), 1026-1049.
Hempel, C.G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135-175.
Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
Kelly, R. M., Akaygun, Hansen S., S. J. R., Villalta-Cerdas, A. & Adam, J. (2021). Examining learning of atomic level ideas about precipitation reactions with a resource framework. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(4), 886-904.
Kelly, R.M., Barrera, J.H., & Mohamed, S.C. (2010). An analysis of undergraduate general chemistry students’ misconceptions of the submicroscopic level of precipitation reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 113–118.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2013). The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. New York: Springer.
Kempler, P. A., Boettcher, S. W., & Ardo, S. (2021). Reinvigorating electrochemistry education. iScience, 24(5).
Lee, S. (2007). Exploring Students’ Understanding Concerning Batteries-Theories and Practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 497-516.
Lewis, A.L.M. & Bodner, G.M. (2013). Chemical reactions: what understanding do students with blindness develop? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 625-636.
Lewthwaite, B. (2014). Thinking about practical work in chemistry: teachers’ considerations of selected practices for the macroscopic experience. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 35-46.
Lin, Y. I., Son, J. Y., & Rudd II, J. A. (2016). Asymmetric translation between multiple representation in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 38(4).
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Linford, H.B. (1961). The Education of Electrochemists. Journal of Electrochemical Society, 108(1), 8C-10C.
Luik, P. & Lepp, M. (2021). Changes in activity and content of messages of an Estonian Facebook group during transition to distance learning at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(6), 1629-1639.
Matijašević, I., Korolija, J.N., & Mandić, L.M. (2016). Translation of P = kT into a pictorial external representation by high school seniors. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 656-674.
McNeill, K.L. (2006). Supporting Students’ Construction of Scientific Explanation through Curricular Scaffolds and Teacher Instructional Practices. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, U.S.A.
Meedee, C., & Yuenyong, C. (2021). Redox Reaction Teaching and Learning for Enhancing Students’ Ability in Constructing Scientific Explanation through Action Research. Asia Research Network Journal of Education, 1(3), 179-204.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies.
Pashler, H. et al. (2007). Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Philipp, S.B., Johnson, D.K., & Yezierski, E.J. (2014). Development of a protocol to evaluate the use of representations in secondary chemistry instruction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 777-786.
Potgieter, M., Harding, A., & Engelbrecht, J. (2008). Transfer of Algebraic and Graphical Thinking between Mathematics and Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 197-218.
Rau, M.A. (2015). Enhancing undergraduate chemistry learning by helping students make connections among multiple graphical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 654-669.
Rahayu, S., Treagust, D.F. & Chandrasegaran, A.L. (2021). High School and Preservice Chemistry Teacher Education Students’ Understanding of Voltaic and Electrolytic Cell Concepts: Evidence of Consistent Learning Difficulties Across Years. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.
Ritchie, S.M., Tobin, K.G. & Hook, K.S. (1997). Teaching Referents and the Warrants Used to Test the Viability of Students’ Mental Models: Is There a Link?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), 223-238.
Rosenthal, D.P. & Sanger, M.J. (2012). Student misinterpretations and misconceptions based on their explanations of two computer animations of varying complexity depicting the same oxidation–reduction reaction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 417-483.
Sanger, M.J. (1996). Identifying, attributing, and dispelling student misconceptions in electrochemistry. Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate Collage, Iowa State University, U.S.A.
Sanger, M.J. & Greenbowe, T.J. (1997). Common Student Misconceptions in Electrochemistry: Galvanic, Electrolytic, and Concentration Cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 337-398.
. (2000). Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 521-537.
Schmidt, H. & Volke, D. (2003). Shift of Meaning and Students’ Alternative Concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1409-1424.
Schmidt, H., Marohn, A., & Harrison, A.G. (2007). Factors That Prevent Learning in Electrochemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 258-283.
Supasorn, S. (2015). Grade 12 students’ conceptual understanding and mental models of galvanic cells before and after learning by using small-scale experiments in conjunction with a model kit. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 393-407.
Taber, K.S. (2013a). Three Levels of Chemistry Education Research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 151-155.
Taber, K.S. (2013b). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168.
Talanquer, V. (2007). Explanations and Teleology in Chemistry Education. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 853-870.
Taskin, V., Bernholt, S., & Parchmann, I. (2015). An inventory for measuring student teachers’ knowledge of chemical representations: design, validation, and psychometric analysis. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 460-477.
Tien, L.T., Osman, K. (2017). Misconceptions in Electrochemistry: How Do Pedagogical Agents Help?. In: Karpudewan, M., Md Zain, A., Chandrasegaran, A. (eds) Overcoming Students' Misconceptions in Science. Springer, Singapore.
Tobin, K. & Tippins, D. J. (1993). Constructivism as a Referent for Teaching and Learning. In K. Tobin. (Ed.). The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. (pp. 1-22). London: Routledge.
Tyler, R., Prain, V., & Hubberm P. (2018). Representation construction as a core Science disciplinary literacy. In K.-S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.) Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 301–317). London: Routledge.
Wertsch, J.V. & Stone, C.A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J.V. Wertsch. (Ed). Culture Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian perspective. (pp. 162-179). New York: Cambridge University.
Wu, M. M., & Yeziersk, E. J. (2022). Pedagogical chemistry sensemaking: a novel conceptual framework to facilitate pedagogical sensemaking in model-based lesson planning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, advance article.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1993). Questions and Answers about Radical Constructivism. In K. Tobin. (Ed.). The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. (pp. 23-38). London: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological process. (Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E., Trans.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.