nach oben

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Erschienen in:

08.01.2019

Learning Chemistry: Self-Efficacy, Chemical Understanding, and Graphing Skills

verfasst von: Shirly Avargil

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Chemistry curriculum should account for learning in context and understanding chemistry at the macroscopic and microscopic levels: the symbol level and the process level. The Taste of Chemistry learning module, developed for high school chemistry majors (students who choose to study the advanced chemistry program in high school), focuses on food-related chemistry, emphasizes learning in context and chemical understanding, and promotes the use of graphing skills. While learning, students are exposed to metacognitive prompts related to the four chemistry-understanding levels and to graphing skills. The objectives were to investigate (a) learning chemistry in context with metacognitive and graphing prompts as it relates to three students learning outcomes: self-efficacy, chemical understanding, and graphing skills and (b) the teachers’ role in promoting these learning outcomes. Research participants included two experimental groups and one comparison group (N = 370). The first experimental group studied the module, while being exposed to the metacognitive prompts via the module and explicit metacognitive instruction from their teachers. The second experimental group studied the module with the prompts embedded in it, but without explicit metacognitive instruction from their teachers. In the comparison group, students learned topics of organic chemistry and biochemistry, which was part of the traditional syllabus.

The experimental students’ self-efficacy, chemical understanding, and graphing skills improved; the net-gains were significantly higher than that of the comparison group. These gains were due to learning in context with the metacognitive prompts. Teachers were instrumental in promoting students’ application of metacognition. This research contributes to the body of knowledge of metacognition and chemical understanding as it bridges the two domains using metacognitive prompts related to the four chemistry-understanding levels and to graphing skills.

Nächster Artikel Exploring the Relationship Between Attentional Capture and Prior Knowledge in a Science-Based Multi-user Virtual Environment: an Individual Growth Model Analysis

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Sci Educ, 91(2), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20176.CrossRef

Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Teaching thinking skills in context-based learning: teachers’ challenges and assessment knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 207–225.CrossRef

Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2013). Challenges in the transition to large-scale reform in chemical education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 189–207.CrossRef

Avargil, S., Lavi, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2018). Students’ metacognition and metacognitive strategies in science education. In: Y. Dori, Z. Mevarech, & D. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education. Innovations in science education and technology (vol. 24). Cham: Springer.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol, 37(2), 122–147.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. J Soc Clin Psychol, 4(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359.CrossRef

Barnea, N., Dori, Y. J., & Hofstein, A. (2010). Development and implementation of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories: reforming high school chemistry in Israel. Chem Educ Res Pract, 11(3), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1039/C005471M.CrossRef

Casselman, B. L., & Atwood, C. H. (2017). Improving general chemistry course performance through online homework-based metacognitive training. J Chem Educ, 94(12), 1811–1821. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00298.CrossRef

Chiu, J., & Linn, M. C. (2012). The role of self-monitoring in learning chemistry with dynamic visualizations. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education (pp. 133–163). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRef

Chiu, J., & Linn, M. C. (2014). Supporting knowledge integration in chemistry with a visualization-enhanced inquiry unit. J Sci Educ Technol, 23(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9449-5.CrossRef

Cooper, M. M., & Sandi-Urena, S. (2009). Design and validation of an instrument to assess metacognitive skillfulness in chemistry problem solving. J Chem Educ, 86(2), 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed086p240.CrossRef

Cooper, M. M., Sandi-Urena, S., & Stevens, R. (2008). Reliable multi method assessment of metacognition use in chemistry problem solving. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 9(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1039/B801287N.CrossRef

De Jong, O., & Taber, K. S. (2015). The many faces of high school chemistry. In Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 457–480). New York: Routledge.

Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. J Res Sci Teach, 40(3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10077.CrossRef

Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: the value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. J Res Sci Teach, 45(2), 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20197.CrossRef

Eilks, I., Rauch, F., Ralle, B., & Hofstein, A. (2013). How to allocate the chemistry curriculum between science and society. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry—a studybook (pp. 1–36). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.CrossRef

Ferrell, B., Phillips, M. M., & Barbera, J. (2016). Connecting achievement motivation to performance in general chemistry. Chem Educ Res Pract, 17(4), 1054–1066. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00148C.CrossRef

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage Publication.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. Am Psychol, 341, 906–911.CrossRef

Gabel, D. (1998). The com plexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef

Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1–8). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_1.CrossRef

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. B. (1992). Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Acad Manag Rev, 17(2), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1992.4279530.CrossRef

Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., Saar, L., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). The relationship between metacognition and the ability to pose questions in chemical education. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education (Vol. 40, pp. 165–195). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6.CrossRef

Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education—a pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in Israel, Germany, and the USA. Int J Sci Math Educ, 9(6), 1459–1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9273-9.CrossRef

Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chem Educ Res Pract, 8(2), 105–107. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90003A.CrossRef

Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. J Res Sci Teach, 42(7), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20072.CrossRef

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn, 7(2), 75–83.CrossRef

Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2008). Metacognition in chemical education: question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment. Instr Sci, 37(5), 403–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9054-9.CrossRef

Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. Int J Sci Math Educ, 6(3), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9066-y.CrossRef

Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRef

Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Sci Educ, 92(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.CrossRef

Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: the effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. Am Educ Res J, 40(1), 281–310. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040001281.CrossRef

Linnenbrink, E. a., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs Instudent engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308223.CrossRef

Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a sociocritical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 231–245.

Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10409-006-9595-6.CrossRef

NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Rev Educ Res, 66(4), 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543.CrossRef

Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: a path analysis. J Educ Psychol, 86(2), 193–203.CrossRef

Pazicni, S., & Bauer, C. F. (2014). Characterizing illusions of competence in introductory chemistry students. Chemical Education Research and Pracice, 15(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00106G.CrossRef

Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Res Sci Educ, 39(3), 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9111-z.CrossRef

Porter, L. A. (2007). Chemical nanotechnology: a liberal arts approach to a basic course in emerging interdisciplinary science and technology. J Chem Educ, 84(2), 259. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p259.CrossRef

Potgieter, M., Harding, A., & Engelbrecht, J. (2008). Transfer of algebraic and graphical thinking between mathematics and chemistry. J Res Sci Teach, 45(2), 197–218.CrossRef

Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B., & McRobbie, C. J. (2003). The role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in kinematics. Res Sci Educ, 33(2), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025073410522.CrossRef

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: when and how? J Educ Comput Res, 3(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.2190/6F4Q-7861-QWA5-8PL1.CrossRef

Sandi-Urena, S., Cooper, M. M., & Stevens, R. H. (2011). Enhancement of metacognition use and awareness by means of a collaborative intervention. Int J Sci Educ, 33(3), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903452922.CrossRef

Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Res Sci Educ, 36(1–2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8.CrossRef

Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2005). The importance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of ‘chemical literacy’. Int J Sci Educ, 27(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000266191.CrossRef

Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science and Education, 17(2–3), 179–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9056-4.CrossRef

Taber, K. S. (2013). 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. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00012e.CrossRef

Tamir, P. (1991). Factors associated with the acquisition of functional knowledge and understanding of science. Res Sci Technol Educ, 9(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514910090103.CrossRef

Tamir, P. (1999). Self-assessment: the use of self-report knowledge and opportunity to learn inventories. Int J Sci Educ, 21(4), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290624.CrossRef

Thomas, G. P. (2013). Changing the metacognitive orientation of a classroom environment to stimulate metacognitive reflection regarding the nature of physics learning. Int J Sci Educ, 35(7), 1183–1207. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.778438.CrossRef

Thomas, G. P., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2008, October 17). Development of an instrument designed to investigate elements of science students’ metacognition, self-efficacy and learning processes: the SEMLI-S. Int J Sci Educ, 30(13), 1701–1724. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701482493.CrossRef

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol, 56(3), 407–415.CrossRef

Wu, H.-K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: a case study of seventh graders’ use of data tables and graphs. J Res Sci Teach, 43(1), 63–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20092.CrossRef

Zhang, W.-X., Hsu, Y.-S., Wang, C.-Y., & Ho, Y.-T. (2015). Exploring the impacts of cognitive and metacognitive prompting on students’ scientific inquiry practices within an E-learning environment. Int J Sci Educ, 37(3), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.996796.CrossRef

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. J Educ Psychol, 82(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51.CrossRef

Titel: Learning Chemistry: Self-Efficacy, Chemical Understanding, and Graphing Skills
verfasst von: Shirly Avargil
Publikationsdatum: 08.01.2019
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Ausgabe 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9765-x

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

Using the S-STEM Survey to Evaluate a Middle School Robotics Learning Environment: Validity Evidence in a Different Context

Using Technology-Enhanced Inquiry-Based Instruction to Foster the Development of Elementary Students’ Views on the Nature of Science

Investigating Students’ Conceptions of Technology-Assisted Science Learning: a Drawing Analysis

Children’s and Adolescents’ Specific Interest in Science and Technology, Participation in Out-of-School Activities and Inclination to Become Scientists

Virtual Reality Simulation: Effects on Academic Performance Within Two Domains of Writing in Science

The Role of Simulation-Enabled Design Learning Experiences on Middle School Students’ Self-generated Inherence Heuristics

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten