An Instructional Framework for Using Scientific Inquiry To Design

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

SQER3: An Instructional Framework for Using Scientific Inquiry To Design Classroom Demonstrations Donna M. Chamely-Wiik,*,a Jerome E. Haky,a Deborah W. Louda,b and Nancy Romancec a

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida 33431 United States Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida 33431 United States c College of Education, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida 33431 United States b

ABSTRACT: Classroom demonstrations have been widely used to engage students’ interest in chemistry. The challenge, however, is to also involve students in science practices and ensure that the demonstration does not become merely a spectator activity. We have developed a framework for creating pedagogically sound demonstrations that allows for easy implementation and flexibility. SQER3survey, question, experiment, recite, reflect, and reviewis an interactive, question-driven framework that draws clear parallels to science practices. The framework also allows students to extend their investigations through cyclical rounds of additional questions and experiments. Examples of demonstrations formatted in the SQER3 framework are presented, and preliminary data on the effectiveness of utilizing this framework in high school classrooms is discussed. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, Demonstrations, Curriculum, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Aqueous Solution Chemistry

■

ing13 and the integration of assessment to assist learning.16 Here, we describe a method for developing demonstrations that can be easily applied by teachers within a framework that links learning theory with classroom practice, incorporates proven pedagogies, and aligns with the 2012 National Research Council’s Framework for K−12 Science Education and the 2009 College Board standards.17,18 This framework promotes student understanding of scientific inquiry by using fundamental scientific processes and practices, which includes making observations, generating testable questions, making predictions, collecting and analyzing data, and devising an evidenced-based explanation that may lead to additional questions.

INTRODUCTION Demonstrations have been used by educators as a pedagogical approach that can both promote students’ interest in chemistry and motivate students toward meaningful learning.1−4 Beyond merely producing momentary excitement, demonstrations have the potential to convey the essential aspects of scientific inquiry while building conceptual knowledge. Shakhashiri notes5 In principle and in practice, every lecture demonstration is a situation in which teachers can convey their attitudes about the experimental basis of chemistry, thus motivating the students to conduct further experimentation and leading them to understand the interplay between theory and experiment. The effectiveness of a demonstration depends upon both its design and its presentation.4,6−15 Key guidelines or instructional strategies suggested from physics and chemistry education research for successful demonstrations include the following: • Defining their purpose. • Engaging the audience. • Using concrete examples and actual observations of physical phenomena. • Preparing and practicing beforehand. • Targeting the appropriate content level and conceptual complexity that builds on relevant background knowledge. • Including follow-up discussion. Such instructional strategies, which have a foundation in established learning theory, support conceptual understand© 2014 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

■

INSTRUCTIONAL THEORIES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES The foundations of our proposed framework include Piaget’s developmental theory, which forms the basis for the constructivist learning theory,13,19−21 and Vigotsky’s theory of scaffolding learning.22 Piaget’s theory defines learning as a cognitive process in which the learner continuously constructs and tests knowledge and meaning from his or her own experiences.13,19−21 Modification of this information is driven by a process known as disequilibration; if the new information does not fit into the existing mental structure, the learner must make appropriate changes to that structure. Vigotsky’s theory addresses the social aspect and explains the role of the instructor in the implementation of an activity. He asserts that Published: January 22, 2014 329

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300689n | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 329−335

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the SQER3 framework.

extract and assimilate knowledge to support reading comprehension. We have used this approach in undergraduate chemistry courses at FAU. In doing so, we have recognized that the pedagogically sound sequence of steps in the SQ3R model could be extended to other instructional methods. Because classroom demonstrations tend to become simply a spectator sport instead of a scientific experience,15 we have applied this model and developed a similar practical framework called the SQER 3 framework, focusing specifically on developing quality demonstrations. Although the processes of obtaining knowledge from reading textbooks and from observing scientific demonstrations are mechanically different, we chose to adapt the SQ3R method because of its proven effectiveness 30−32 and the similarities in the cognitive progression involved in both activities. Our SQER3 framework (survey, question, experiment, recite, ref lect, and review) is a student-driven, cyclical framework that promotes understanding of key concepts, integrates sound scientific principles, and uses proven educational pedagogies with the purpose of assisting instructors in creating and presenting successful classroom demonstrations.

children learn through interactions with their peers, with their surroundings, and with adults, who support and scaffold this learning.21,22 These early learning theories have led to different instructional teaching models for science, the best known one being Robert Karplus’s learning cycle.23,24 The learning cycle divides learning into three necessary instructional phases: exploration, concept introduction or invention, and concept application or extension. Research has shown that incorporating the learning cycle is effective in improving students’ mastery of science, their ability to reason scientifically, and their attitudes toward science when compared to traditional teaching methods.25 Direct descendants of the Karplus learning cycle include the BSCS 5E instructional model26 (engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration and evaluation) and Eisenkraft’s 7E model27 (which adds elicit and extend phases). Studies conducted on the effectiveness of the 5E model show evidence of increased mastery, development of scientific reasoning, and increased interest when compared to traditional teaching methods.26 The findings also indicate that variations in the implementation of the 5E model may have an impact on student learning outcomes. If, for instance, the 5E model is used as a linear process, then students do not experience an accurate representation of scientific inquiry. The importance of accurately reflecting the processes and practices of science by creating a framework has also been endorsed by Harwood.28 However, even though these models provide an excellent foundation based on theory, they may not offer enough practical guidance for teachers to develop and implement quality classroom demonstrations. An example of a model that is grounded in theory and that does provide such concrete guidance is the SQ3R approach.29−31 This structured reading model and study technique, whose mnemonic stands for survey, question, read, recite, and review, instructs students in how to simultaneously

■

EVOLUTION OF SQ3R INTO SQER3 In the SQ3R reading model, the student briefly surveys the text (headings, titles, bolded words etc.) and writes a list of questions he or she would like to have answered. The student then reads the chapter or section with the goal of answering those questions. During the recite stage, the student speaks or writes in his or her own words a key phrase that answers the questions based on what was read in the text. In doing so, the student creates individual chapter outlines. Finally the student reviews the new information by self-checking to ensure that he or she remembers the key ideas. In applying the model to scientific demonstrations, we have modified the sequence of steps used 330

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300689n | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 329−335

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

preliminary observation, either reading the first sentence of each paragraph in the selection or witnessing an initial scientific phenomenon. Both methods then require formulation of questions followed by a self-directed task, either reading a selection or designing an experiment with the goal of answering the questions. Most importantly, in their last steps, both methods emphasize the importance of recitation, reflection, and summarization, either in written or oral form, of what was learned in the process, what evidence supports the new knowledge, and what questions may remain. Such verbalization processes have been shown to be an important component of various learning methods and are prominently emphasized in the 2012 NRC Framework.18,33 Our SQER3 method also includes opportunities for students to go back and perform additional activities to develop more questions and attempt to answer them, a strategy not explicitly recommended in the more linear SQ3R method. The difference here is the contrast between the tight focus on comprehending a specific set of concepts from a textbook selection versus the more expansive goal of promoting student understanding of how scientific principles and the wide range of scientific practices involved in a classroom demonstration engender in-depth learning and an appreciation of how new knowledge develops. Such an approach is significantly different from many previous approaches to science teaching and learning.18

in the SQ3R reading approach to accommodate the experimental and, ideally, interactive nature of a demonstration. In the SQER3 demonstration framework, the following steps are used, as outlined in Figure 1. Survey

The survey step focuses on the key concepts or fundamental question the demonstration is addressing. The instructor conducts part of the demonstration designed to promote student curiosity and elicit prior knowledge. The students make observations from the demonstration. Question

The question step enables students to develop testable questions or hypotheses based on initial observations and prior knowledge leading to student-led direction of the demonstration. Under the guidance of the instructor, the students formulate at least one testable question that the next step of the demonstration will attempt to answer. Experiment

The experiment step involves effectively designing and conducting an experiment or experiments (i.e., one that is feasible to investigate further) based on the students’ questions. The instructor continues the demonstration, performing the student-driven experiment(s), and allows the students to collect data and make additional observations. Through discussions with the students, the instructor introduces concepts such as controls, variables, reproducibility, and so forth.

■

EXAMPLES OF SQER3 DEMONSTRATIONS Inherent in the design of the SQER3 framework is the integration of science practices throughout the demonstration in order to provide students with a genuine scientific experience and to foster their conceptual understanding and critical thinking skills. As an example, we have applied the SQER3 framework to the well-known density experiment34−37 as a demonstration38 that uses regular and diet soda cans. It should be emphasized that there is no single method for presenting a demonstration with the SQER3 format, as modifications may be necessary to accommodate the learning needs of students. The flexible nature of this format renders it highly adaptable to the instructor’s specific goals and intentions. In designing an SQER3 demonstration, the instructor should address all the usual guidelines for preparing a demonstration, with special consideration of the following issues: • Students’ prior knowledge: What information are the students bringing to the demonstration? What prior knowledge do they need? Is the demonstration intended to introduce, reinforce, or review the topic? • The instructor’s learning objectives for the demonstration: What science concepts are intended to be central to the demonstration experience and what concepts are peripheral? • The scientific nature of the demonstration: Where are opportunities to incorporate science practices? How do we make the practices of science explicit to the learner in the process of the demonstration? • Integration into other curriculum topics: How can connections be made to students’ previous and future learning of related science topics? A critical role of the instructor in the SQER3 framework is to elicit student participation and ideas while directing the flow of the demonstration toward the intended outcomes. The result is a demonstration that is essentially student driven yet is still guided and focused by the instructor.

Recite

The recite step formalizes the data collection and observations being made to address the question being investigated. With guidance from the instructor, students organize and analyze the data, generating tables, graphs, and so on, as appropriate. Additionally, students demonstrate their understanding by verbally summarizing the results. Reflect

The reflect step encourages students to interpret and discuss the meaning of the data collected. Students begin to make inferences based on their observations and results. In doing so, students construct an explanation to convey their understanding of the key concepts illustrated by the demonstration. At this point, the experimentation, data collection, and reflection may lead students to re-evaluate the original hypothesis, develop additional testable questions that need to be answered, and design other experiments that need to be conducted. In this case, the instructor will repeat the question, experiment, recite, and ref lect steps until the key concepts are adequately addressed. Review

The review step enables students and the instructor to revisit the key concepts and to challenge students to answer the fundamental question of the demonstration on the basis of their newfound knowledge (gathered from data collected by experimentation and the discussion that ensued from the previous steps). The instructor can then scaffold learning by posing additional, higher-level questions to students to assess their understanding beyond the context of the demonstration itself. This process allows the students to extend and integrate their new knowledge into new situations. Despite their different applications, the SQ3R reading model and our SQER3 demonstration framework share a number of similar strategies. For example, both frameworks begin with a 331

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300689n | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 329−335

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Soda Can Density Demonstration

Experiment. The instructor or students would determine the masses of the various cans, measure their volumes, calculate their densities, calculate the density of water, and compare data to formulate a conclusion or summary statement. Recite. Students would state that based on the evidence gathered for all cans, those with densities greater than water sink, whereas those with densities less than water float. Reflect. Students would conclude that density is a factor in the behavior of the cans. Review. The review could include a number of different ideas, starting with a summary of the main concept covered by the demonstration. The question could be posed as to why regular soda is denser than diet soda and the amount of solid sugar versus the amount of artificial sweetener contained in one can of soda could be shown. A regular can of soda could be placed in a beaker where it floats (as the beaker now contains a salt solution) and the students asked to generate an explanation. The processes of observation, generating testable questions, and then designing an experiment should be emphasized. Students could also be asked to consider the validity of conclusions made from a limited number of observations or measurements. The history of science and Archimedes’ experiments could be discussed, as could realworld applications of density, such as submarines and fish swim bladders. In assessing student learning, the teacher could test the ability of the students to observe (Which soda cans float?), explain (Why do some cans float and others sink?), generalize (What are the conditions under which object A will sink in liquid B?), and extend their understanding (If ethanol has a density of 0.79 g/mL, what would be the density of a solid block that sinks in ethanol but floats in water?). Opportunities for relating this demonstration to other curriculum topics in terms of both content and science practices could be exploited. The density demonstration described above was developed as part of an ongoing collaboration between FAU and the School District of Palm Beach County, through our NSF GK− 12 Program grant, Project ChemBOND: The Next Generation. The GK−12 program pairs graduate fellows in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research (GK−12 fellows) with high school teachers (GK−12 teachers) to work in their classrooms in part to implement conceptually rich activities into the curriculum. The four principal investigators for this grant (the four authors) designed this SQER3 density demonstration and presented it to the high school teachers and fellows participating in the GK−12 project in a professional development session. During this session, the fundamental characteristics of the SQER3 framework were also explained, and the teachers and fellows were then asked to create another SQER3 demonstration for use in their classrooms. The teachers and fellows chose to develop a conductivity demonstration. Because the framework encourages flexibility, the exact progression of the demonstration varied in the different classrooms. However, the same concepts and components were included within an SQER3 format. An example is given below.

The soda can density demonstration can be integrated into the curriculum in any one of several places with different levels of complexity. One place it works well is near the beginning of a general chemistry course to introduce the idea of physical properties. A possible application of the SQER3 framework that exemplifies the recursive nature of the process is presented below. Density Round 1. Survey. The instructor would introduce the concept of physical properties, give a few examples, and ask the students for additional examples. The instructor would explain that the behavior of a substance or object can sometimes depend upon a combination of physical properties, and would then place a regular soda can (red, 12 oz. or 355 mL) and a diet soda can (silver, 12 oz. or 355 mL) in two separate beakers of water. Question. The instructor would ask the students what they observe and elicit what questions they have along with possible explanations of the observation. The instructor would then focus on one of the questions developed by the students, such as “Is the color of the can a factor in whether it sinks or floats?” The students could also be asked to figure out how to test their question. Experiment. The instructor or students would place one empty regular soda can and one empty diet soda can in beakers of water. Other empty cans with other colors could also be used. Recite. The students would describe their observation that both empty cans float, despite their different colors. Reflect. Students would conclude that color is not a factor in the behavior of the cans, and would consider other physical properties to explain their observations. Density Round 2. Question. Students would develop another question related to their observations, such as “Is the mass of the can a factor in whether it sinks or floats?” They could also determine how to test their question. Experiment. The instructor or students would measure and record the mass of the two 12-oz cans (regular and diet). The instructor or students would also measure and record the mass of two 7.5 oz. cans (regular and diet) and place them each in beakers of water. Recite. The students would explain that the 12 oz. (355 mL) can of regular soda sinks because it has a greater mass than the 12 oz. (355 mL) can of diet soda that floats. They would also describe their observation about the diet and regular 7.5 oz. (222 mL) cans of soda, specifically, that they behave in the same manner as the 12 oz. (355 mL) cans of sodas, despite the smaller mass. The students would note that in each case, the regular soda sinks and the diet soda floats. They would conclude that the regular soda must be denser than water. Reflect. Students would conclude that mass cannot be the only factor in the behavior of the cans, because both the large and small cans of regular soda sank. Also, some students would note that, at constant volume, mass seems to be the determining factor. Density Round 3. Question. Students would formulate other questions regarding volume, the material composition of the can as well as the content of the can. At some point, the instructor would (if necessary) guide the discussion toward considering a combination of physical properties and introduce and define density. The question would then be “Is density a factor in whether a can sinks or floats?”

Conductivity Demonstration

This conductivity demonstration fits into the chemistry curriculum under properties of solutions. Prior to this demonstration, students are expected to have a general understanding of ions, ionic bonds, dissociation, and solubility. For this demonstration, an instrument to quantitatively or 332

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300689n | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 329−335

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

ionic bonds conduct electricity in solution, whereas the compounds with covalent bonds do not. Review. The review could include a number of different ideas, starting with a summary of the main concept covered by the demonstration. The questions could be posed as to whether the size of a compound, the concentration of a compound, or the stoichiometry of the compound could affect the conductivity. Additional experiments could be proposed to answer these additional questions and performed, if possible.

qualitatively measure conductivity is required (e.g., a lightbulb with two electrodes or a conductivity meter). Conductivity Round 1. Survey. To introduce the concept of electrolytes and conductivity, the instructor would ask for words associated with a sports drink (e.g., Gatorade). When the students mention the word “electrolyte”, the instructor would discuss the definition in terms of the relative ability of a solution to conduct electricity. The instructor would indicate that the current demonstration will focus solely on the conductivity of solutions. He or she would measure the conductivity of a sample of the sports drink and deionized (DI) water. Question. Using the students’ observations, the instructor would elicit questions students have along with possible explanations of their observations. The instructor would then focus on one of the questions developed by the students. For example, students are likely to ask, “What are the ingredients in sports drinks that may have an effect on its conductivity?” The students would then be provided with the ingredients list and asked to identify the main ingredients, namely, salt (sodium chloride), sugar (fructose), and water. The students would be reminded that DI water was already identified to be nonconductive. Experiment. The instructor or students would test the conductivity of a solution of salt (sodium chloride) and a solution of sugar (fructose) in DI water. Recite. The students would describe their observation, noting that only the sodium chloride solution conducts electricity. Reflect. The students would conclude that the conductivity of sports drinks is due to the sodium chloride rather than the fructose and would consider whether these observations would extend to other sugars and salts. Conductivity Round 2. Question. The students would ask “Are all sugar solutions nonconductive and are all salt solutions conductive? Experiment. The instructor or students would test the conductivity of other sugar solutions, such as glucose and sucrose. Several salt solutions such as copper(II) sulfate, barium nitrate, potassium iodide, sodium bromide, and magnesium chloride would also be tested for conductivity. Recite. The students would note that all sugar solutions do not conduct electricity and all salt solutions do conduct electricity. Reflect. The students would review their knowledge of bonding and chemical structures and propose that the nature of the bonding in the tested compounds may play a role in conductivity (i.e., ionic versus covalent). On the basis of their observations, students would conclude that all solutions of ionic compounds conduct electricity. However, they would note that further experiments are needed to make a general conclusion about covalent compounds, as all the covalent compounds tested are sugars. Conductivity Round 3. Question. Students would develop another question related to their observations, such as “Are all solutions of covalent compounds nonconductive?” Experiment. The instructor or students would measure the conductivity of a variety of covalent compounds in solution (e.g., ethanol, formaldehyde, acetone). Recite. Students would note that all the tested compounds do not conduct electricity. Reflect. On the basis of the evidence gathered for all compounds tested, the students would conclude that those with

Classroom Results with an SQER3 Demonstration

A pilot study was carried out in which the SQER3 conductivity demonstration was implemented in four local high schools. The purpose of this study was to gather preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of the SQER3 framework in promoting student understanding of chemical concepts. The SQER3 conductivity demonstration was implemented in 20 high school chemistry classes (regular, honors, and advanced placement) with five different teachers and a total of 490 students. Although all the teachers and fellows used the SQER3 framework, they were able to adapt the demonstration as needed depending upon the level of students’ prior knowledge in each classroom as well as available time. In most of the classes, information on covalent and ionic compounds had been presented earlier in the semester, but students were not familiar with the concept of electrolytes at the time of the demonstration. Each teacher administered a short pretest prior to the demonstration and then administered the same test as a posttest following the demonstration. The test varied among the different teachers, but in all cases the test consisted of less than ten short answer or multiple-choice questions that covered the same key concepts. Students were asked to classify various compounds (with formulas) as having ionic or covalent bonds and as being electrolytes or nonelectrolytes. Some of the compounds on the test were used in the demonstration and some were not. Preliminary results comparing pretest performance with post-test performance are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Comparative Test Results of SQER3 Conductivity Demonstration teacher

students, n

average pretest scorea

average post-test scorea

gain, %

p value

1 2 3 4 5 Total

69 156 89 84 92 490

85.33 73.48 69.59 61.51 60.60 68.64

90.40 92.95 89.86 86.51 77.17 86.99

5.07 19.47 20.27 25.00 16.57 18.35