The Rainbow Wheel and Rainbow Matrix: Two Effective Tools for

Research: Science and Education edited by

Chemical Education Research

Diane M. Bunce The Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. 20064

The Rainbow Wheel and Rainbow Matrix: Two Effective Tools for Learning Ionic Nomenclature

Christopher F. Bauer University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824-3598

Joseph S. Chimeno* Department of Chemistry, College of Eastern Utah, Price, UT 84501; *[email protected] Gary P. Wulfsberg,** Michael J. Sanger, and Tammy J. Melton Department of Chemistry, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132; **[email protected]

In our experience, chemical nomenclature is a consistent problem for first-year chemistry students, and a minimum quantity of time is devoted to it in class. The traditional assignment for chemical nomenclature involves having students work practice problems at the end of the chapter. The minimal exposure to chemical nomenclature in class along with the uninteresting approach of the traditional assignment results in students having a poor working knowledge of chemical nomenclature. Several studies claimed that students are more receptive to learning chemistry concepts when game playing is combined with the learning activity (1–6). Game playing increases student comprehension of subject matter, primarily because it engages students in the topic; the more engaged a student is in a task, the more likely he or she will learn from the task (7–12). While most of these studies (1–6, 13–15) reported an improvement in student performance or attitude with the use of a game, none of these studies have performed educational research to measure its effectiveness. In this article, we tested two educational games that were created to help students develop a working knowledge of inorganic chemical nomenclature: The Rainbow Wheel (16), and its new computerized version, the Rainbow Matrix (Figure 1). Both games are based upon the concept of combining various cations and anions into the correct formulas, and then naming the compounds using the Stock method (17). Naming ionic compounds and writing their formulas involves multiple steps (Figure 2). Students must convert the formula of a salt to the formulas of its ions (A → B). Students also need to be able to name the ions (B → C) and then be able to name the resulting salt (C → D) formed from the ions. A thorough practice of this process in both directions allows students to develop a working knowledge of chemical nomenclature. To play the Rainbow Matrix game, a student combines a computer-selected cation and anion and is asked to type out the correct formula of the cation–anion combination and the name of the ionic compound. In a typical session, a student will have written the formulas and names of 100 different compounds. When the game first loads, the student is asked to choose between a practice game and a test. The practice game has ion cutouts (Figure 3), which help a student visualize how many ions are required for the correct formula. The test does not provide this clue. The practice session gives the student three attempts to answer correctly; the test session gives only one chance to give the correct answer. www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Figure 1. The Rainbow Matrix chemical nomenclature game.

A. Formula of salt:

B. Formulas of ions: ⴙ ⴚ Fe3 Cl1

FeCl3

C. Names of ions:

D. Name of salt:

ⴙ Fe3 iron(III) 1ⴚ Cl chloride

iron(III) chloride

Figure 2. Steps in reasoning the transformation of the Stock name of an inorganic salt to its chemical formula and vice versa.

ⴙ ⴙ

ⴚ

ⴙ

ⴚ

Figure 3. Typical cation and anion cutouts, to represent a 3+ cation and a 2− anion.

Vol. 83 No. 4 April 2006

•

Journal of Chemical Education

651

Research: Science and Education

There are 36 different cations in the cation matrix and 36 different anions in the anion matrix. Since the Rainbow Wheel game consists of 100 possible combinations of cations and anions (16), the Rainbow Matrix game was set at 100 combinations of cations and anions as well. Once a student completes his or her assignment, the computer grades it, and the results can be emailed to the instructor. This allows a student to receive immediate feedback from the computer for the work just performed. Students have access to the Rainbow Matrix game via the Internet once their instructor has acquired the site license for the use of the game (18); the Rainbow Wheel can also be obtained from the same source. Testing the Effectiveness of the Games The effectiveness of using these games to assist in the learning of ionic nomenclature was tested as part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation. The study involved 40 volunteer students in the first semester of a two-semester general chemistry sequence for science and pre-professional majors. The students were aware that they were part of a study and gave their written permission to participate. The class, which was divided into three groups, received the same one-hour lecture instruction on ionic nomenclature including the Stock rules and the use of the ion cutouts (Figure 3). After the lecture instruction, all groups of students were given the preassignment quiz. The Rainbow Wheel (RW) and Rainbow Matrix (RM) groups were compared to the Traditional Learning (TL) group to determine whether these methods were more or less effective than traditional homework in helping students develop a working knowledge of ionic nomenclature. The TL group participated in a traditional homework assignment that involved working problems at the end of a chapter. Lists of common ions were provided along with periodic tables for all students during the practice sessions, all assignments, and the hour exam. (Note that the learning of → C was not tested.) the conversion B ← Each group’s assignments were completed in the following lab period. All three groups were allotted the same quantity of time (2.5 hours) on their respective tasks and each student was allowed to work at his or her own pace. All of the students finished their work and left within the allotted time. Each group performed the same number of problems of converting chemical names to formulas and vice versa. The three groups were randomly assigned based on their respective lab times. While the RM groups received feedback from the computer after all 100 questions were answered, both the RW and TL groups received feedback when their assignments, graded by the instructor, were returned to the students at the next lecture meeting. One week after completing their lab assignments, all three groups took the post-assignment quiz. The assignment for the TL group consisted of answering the exercises at the end of chapter in the class text (19). Many of these exercises have multiple parts, and eighteen others were added to make a total of 100 exercises. These exercises were varied in nature: 28 gave the ion formula and asked the students to write the formulas of the salts (B → A); four gave the names of the ions and asked students to write the formulas of the ions (C → B); four gave the formulas of the ions and asked for the names (B → C); 18 gave the formulas 652


•

of the ions and asked for the names of the salts (B → D); 20 gave the formulas of the salts and asked for the names of the salts (A → D); 21 gave the names of the salts and asked for the formulas (D → A); 24 gave other miscellaneous tasks. In contrast, the 100 practice exercises for the RW and the 100 practice or test questions for RM assignments each gave the formulas of the ions and asked the students to write the correct formula of the salt (B → A) and then name the corresponding salt (B → D). The pre-assignment and post-assignment quizzes consisted of ten questions that gave the names of the salts and asked for the formulas of the salts (D → A), and ten questions that gave the formulas of the salts and asked for the names (A → D). Only the TL group practiced both (A → D) and (D → A) questions. Quantitative Results This study was designed to have three groups: Traditional Learning, Rainbow Wheel, and Rainbow Matrix. The preassignment quiz scores were analyzed to determine the equivalence of the three groups before the experiment was performed. The adjusted least-square means and standard error for the pre-quiz scores appear in Table 1. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows that the pre-quiz scores for the three groups are not significantly different [F (2,37) = 0.55, p = 0.58]. Nevertheless, we decided to use the pre-quiz scores as a covariate when making future comparisons of the three groups. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the postassignment quiz scores (using the pre-quiz scores as the covariate) revealed a statistical difference among the three groups [F (2,36) = 8.62, p = 0.001]. The adjusted least-square means and standard error for the post-quiz scores are listed in Table 1. Table 1. Adjusted Least-Square Means for the Pre-Assignment Quiz, the Post-Assignment Quiz, and the Exam Scores Group

n

Pre-Assignment Post-Assignment Scoresa Scoresa

Exam Scoresb

Traditional Learning

16

7.8 (1.2)

12.9 (0.8)

10.0 (0.8)

Rainbow Wheel

13

6.3 (1.4)

17.5 (0.9)

13.0 (0.9)

Rainbow Matrix

11

8.3 (1.5)

17.0 (1.0)

13.6 (1.0)

a

Scored out of 20.

b

Scored out of 16.

Table 2. Standardized Range Scores for the Post-Assignment Quiz and Exam Scores Traditional Learning

Rainbow Wheel

Rainbow Matrix

0/0

—

—

Rainbow Wheel

5.93*/3.53*

0/0

—

Rainbow Matrix

4.85*/4.06*

᎑0.76/0.66

0/0

Group Traditional Learning

Note: The post-assignment quiz score is listed first, followed by the exam scores. The asterisk indicates p < 0.05.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


A Tukey–Kramer HSD post hoc multiple comparison test (20) was performed using the adjusted means for the postquiz scores; the results appear in Table 2. These results show that students in the RW and RM groups both performed better than students in the TL group. This implies that using the game-playing strategies is more effective at teaching nomenclature than the traditional problem-solving method. Using games most likely increases motivation to perform the task of naming and writing formulas for inorganic ionic compounds. An additional source of data was the first exam for the course. There were two questions written by the instructor on the exam that were devoted to chemical nomenclature. The exam was given the day after the lab assignment but before the post-assignment quiz. Students were asked to combine certain cations with certain anions into the correct formula (B → A), to name specific formulas (A → D), and write the correct formula for certain compounds (D → A). An analysis of covariance for the exam scores (using the preassignment quiz scores as the covariate) revealed a statistical difference among the three groups [F (2,36) = 5.18, p = 0.011]. The adjusted least-square means and standard error for the exam scores are listed in Table 1. The results of a Tukey–Kramer HSD post hoc multiple comparison test performed on the exam scores using the adjusted means appear in Table 2. These results also demonstrate that students in the RW and RM groups both performed better than students in the TL group. The average scores out of 16 (and percentages) are: TL = 10.0 (63%), RW = 13.0 (81%), and RM = 13.6 (85%). These differences clearly demonstrate a practical difference in scores from a student’s perspective, since the TL average corresponds to a grade of D+, the RW average corresponds to a B᎑, and the RM average corresponds to a B using the instructor’s grading scale. In addition, the instructor for the class (21) commented that “these students performed better on chemical nomenclature on their first exam than any class that I have taught in the past.” The emphasis that was placed on nomenclature and the increased practice many have accounted for the improvement in the students’ test scores on the first exam on the nomenclature section.

language (visualization) has also been recognized as an important concept in the chemical education literature (23–27). The Rainbow Matrix game really helped me to visually understand and interact with naming compounds, which helped me learn the material. (RM) The wheel helped me to see how everything is being put together. (RW) I think this [making a game out of the exercise] would make it more interesting and easier to see how it all fits together. (TL)

The role of the instructor was another important theme identified by the students, but often for very different reasons. The TL group valued the instructor as the main source of information and as the expert who could tell them whether they were answering the questions correctly. The RW and RM students, on the other hand, viewed the instructor as a source of technical information regarding how to use the games. It was explained simply and my questions were happily answered with a reason why. (TL) I liked the helpfulness of the instructor. Everything was taught very clearly and in a way that I could understand it. (TL) The instructor was very helpful in explaining how to play the Wheel game. (RW) The instructor helped us understand how to set up the Rainbow Matrix game and worked a few examples for us. (RM)

All three groups emphasized the role of practice. Some students wanted more examples to be worked in class and assigned as homework. In general, students thought that practice helped them to remember the names of ions and formulas. I like the forced repetition. (TL) Doing the problems over and over was a little repetitive, but in the long run, help drill it into my head. Maybe narrow down the number of problems? I would recommend a whole lot more practice, i.e., homework problems and quizzes. (RW) By repeating the combinations over and over, it really drove the point home and helped me see just how to do chemical nomenclature. (RM)

Qualitative Results Each participating student was asked to respond to a voluntary four-question questionnaire. Students were asked what they liked most about the way they were taught chemical nomenclature, to evaluate the method they used to learn chemical nomenclature, to recommend improvements in teaching chemical nomenclature, and whether they believed they had attained a certain level of mastery of chemical nomenclature by participating in the study. The response rate from the questionnaire was 40%. The constant comparison technique (22) for data analysis was used to determine the emergent themes from the questionnaire data. From the students’ responses, five major themes were identified. The role of visualization was important to students because it helped them to see how the ions fit together in forming the ionic formula. The importance of being able to grab the ion cutouts (Figure 3) and link them together was emphasized by the RM group. In addition, at least one TL student recognized that visuals (while absent) would be helpful. Pictorial www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

The role of game playing was important to the students in the RW and RM groups where the assignment was based upon playing a game. They indicated that it was fun and made the lesson more interactive. Game playing allowed the students to participate in the process of learning the material rather than just writing answers to problems. Even students not involved in the game format methods saw the potential value of game playing to enhance learning. I would suggest making some kind of game or memorization exercise out of it. I think this would make it more interesting… (TL) Playing the game (wheel) was fun and helped me to practice naming everything. The Rainbow Wheel was effective because it was presented like a fun game and it kept my attention better. (RW) I wish that more of chemistry was taught using a computer game. (RM)


•


653


Students in each of the three groups provided comments indicating that the study helped them recognize the importance of chemical nomenclature. Many of the students liked the emphasis placed on chemical nomenclature as a tool for communicating formulas to other chemists in the language of chemistry. I liked the lab research because I feel like I got the most that I’ve ever gotten out of nomenclature in lab, and I understand the importance of nomenclature after the lab. (TL) I now have a much better understanding of chemical nomenclature and its importance. (RM) I am now aware of the importance of chemical nomenclature when communicating with other students in chemistry. (RM)

Conclusions The statistical results from this study suggest that the Rainbow Matrix and Rainbow Wheel gaming methods are more effective than the traditional learning method in helping students develop a working knowledge of ionic nomenclature. This is consistent with the assertions of other chemistry gaming method articles that students are more receptive to learning when a game format is incorporated into the learning process (1–6). We identified three factors that might have led to the differences between the three groups: the quality and time of student feedback, use of the ion cutouts, and motivational issues associated with the games. Since all three groups received feedback before the post-test quiz assignment, we do not believe that the differences among the three groups can be attributed to the feedback methods. Although all three groups received instruction about the use of ion cutouts, only the RW group was given time to practice using the cutouts. However, since the RW and RM group means for the postquiz and the exam are similar, it does not appear that the additional use of the ion cutouts substantially helped the RM group. Since both groups that used the gaming methods (RW and RM) performed better than the group that used the traditional method, it is likely that both gaming methods improved student motivation in solving 100 problems, a task that could become repetitive and uninteresting (7–12). Although the Rainbow Wheel and the Rainbow Matrix use different media and different instructional activities (a hands-on paper-and-pencil assignment versus a computer program), both methods appear to be equally effective at teaching ionic nomenclature. Even though the students in the RW and RM groups performed better than the TL group in naming ionic compounds, all three groups reported the same factors as being important aspects of their respective instruction. These factors include the role of visualization, the role of the instructor, the role of practice, the role of game playing, and the importance of nomenclature. Even though the three groups cited the same factors as being important, it was often for very different reasons.

654


•

Acknowledgments We acknowledge John Lutz (http://www.johnlutz.com) for writing the java script for the Rainbow Matrix. We would like to thank Amy Phelps for her guidance and input. We would also like to thank Michael Morrison, president of North Iowa Area Community College, for giving the first author released time to complete the research. Literature Cited 1. Russell, J. V.; Granath, P. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 485– 486. 2. Russell, J. V. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 487–488. 3. Crute, T. D. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 481–482. 4. Owens, K. D.; Sanders, R. L.; Murray, S. D. Sci. Scope 1997, 20, 31–33. 5. Mullin, J.; Courtney, P. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, A130–A131. 6. Deavor, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 430. 7. Gardner, H. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences; Basic Books: New York, 1993. 8. Dembo, M. H. Motivation and Learning Strategies for College Success; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 2000; pp 3–66. 9. Weiner, B. S. Psych. Rev. 1985, 92, 548–573. 10. Sass, E. J. Teach. Psych. 1989, 16, 86–88. 11. Mitchell, R. G., Jr. Sociological Implications of the Flow Experience. In Optimal Experience Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness, 1st ed.; Csikszentmihalyi, M., Csikszentmihalyi, I. S., Eds.; Cambridge Univ. Press: Cambridge, 1998; pp 57–59. 12. Lundy, J. Stud. Higher Educ. 1991, 16, 179–188. 13. Dreyfuss, D. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 434. 14. Denny, R. A.; Lakshmi, R.; Chitra, H.; Devi, N. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 477–478. 15. Keck, M. V. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 483. 16. Chimeno, J. S. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 144–145. 17. Jorissen, W. P.; Bassett, H.; Damiens, A.; Fichter, F.; Remy, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1941, 63, 889–897. 18. Rainbow Matrix Chemical Nomenclature Game, 2nd ed.; College of Eastern Utah, Price, UT, 2003. http://www.chemgames.com (accessed Nov 2005). 19. Brown, T. L.; LeMay, H. E., Jr.; Bursten, B. E.; Burdge, J. R. Chemistry: The Central Science, 9th ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Hills, NJ, 2003; p 63. 20. Hinkle, D. E.; Wiersma, W.; Jurs, S. G. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed.; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, 1994; pp 363–364, 494–495. 21. Sanger, M. J. Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN. Personal communication, 2003. 22. Glaser, B. G.; Strauss, A. L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine: New York, 1967. 23. Sanger, M. J.; Badger, S. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1412– 1416. 24. Sanger, M. J.; Phelps, A. J.; Fienhold, J. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1517–1520. 25. Sanger, M. J.; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 819– 823. 26. Russell, J. W.; Kozma, R. B.; Jones, T.; Wykoff, J.; Marx, N. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 330–334. 27. Milne, R. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 50–51.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

The Rainbow Wheel and Rainbow Matrix: Two Effective Tools for

Recommend Documents