Supporting Alternative Strategies for Learning Chemical Applications

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Supporting Alternative Strategies for Learning Chemical Applications of Group Theory Daniel C. Southam*,† and Jennifer E. Lewis‡ †

Department of Chemistry, Curtin University, Perth WA 6845, Australia Department of Chemistry, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, United States

‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: A group theory course for chemists was taught entirely with process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) to facilitate alternative strategies for learning. Students completed a test of one aspect of visuospatial aptitude to determine their individual approaches to solving spatial tasks, and were sorted into groups for analysis on the basis of their aptitude. Affective constructs from self-determination theory relating to motivation were also assessed. Students without strong visuospatial skills found the activities more interesting and enjoyable than students who could successfully complete spatial tasks. Equally successful outcomes were observed on an assessment task, irrespective of visuospatial aptitude of the student. This illustrates that a pedagogy structured around multiple strategies for reasoning can successfully support alternative approaches to abstract concepts, such as chemical applications of group theory.

KEYWORDS: Upper-Division Undergraduate, Graduate Education/Research, Chemical Education Research, Inorganic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Group Theory/Symmetry FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

■

INTRODUCTION Group theory, as a branch of mathematics, can systematically describe molecular properties that are influenced by their threedimensional symmetry.1 This topic often forms part of a senior undergraduate inorganic or physical chemistry curriculum,2 where it is used to explore chemical bonding3 and vibrational spectra.4 The traditional instructional approach requires rapid manipulation of representations of molecular-scale threedimensional phenomena to apply the principles of group theory and chemically interpret the outcomes. Two predominant approaches are thought to be used by students to solve problems in group theory, with each approach heavily influenced by individual aptitude. Imagistic reasoning is the more frequently espoused instructional approach, in which students conceptualize the representation, apply an operation, and produce the outcome. Alternative, more cognitively demanding approaches include feature-based strategies that avoid the intended imagistic route. Experts apply a combination of these approaches, and students can use either or both on similar tasks with equal efficacy.5 However, students without strong visuospatial skills may be amotivated toward these tasks when multiple strategies are not facilitated in instruction. To facilitate multiple student strategies for learning group theory, a © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

model pedagogy reliant on multiple modes of reasoning was used: process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL).6 Using a measure of an important aspect of spatial ability, regular summative assessment, and a subjective self-report relating to student motivation toward the experience, we can address the aim: as a result of a student’s spatial ability are there any observable differences in that student’s abilities and experiences in this POGIL group theory classroom?

■

POGIL AND GROUP THEORY POGIL was identified as a model pedagogy with potential to facilitate alternative strategies for learning abstract concepts, such as group theory, that has demonstrated efficacy in lower division classrooms.7,8 In a POGIL classroom, students work through carefully crafted activities in small groups facilitated by an instructor.9 The activities are modeled on a learning cycle that includes both inductive and deductive process skills, a departure from traditional methods of instruction.6 The use of POGIL in the classroom has a number of potential benefits to students,10 and in this study, we wish to harness its ability to motivate students toward chemical applications of group theory

A

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400063t | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 1. An example of a POGIL model from the third activity used to illustrate the effect of symmetry elements (symbols above the right arrow) on an illustration of the boundary surface of a hydrogenic atomic orbital, which can then be used to construct the character of a linear function with directionality in x. This model links three-dimensional phenomena and spatial orientation with irreducible symmetry species and its character, as described in the character table.

■

VISUOSPATIAL APTITUDE AND MOTIVATION Visuospatial aptitude can be categorized as a series of spatial abilities that an individual may use to comprehend and transform visual imagery.13 The issue of whether these abilities are innate or can be taught is contentious;14 however, they are considered to be important indicators of an aptitude for science and related disciplines.15 Likewise, study results conflict over the influence of gender on spatial ability, with differences observed on some spatial tasks16 yet not others.17 Within these abilities there are a number of factors, “each emphasizing different aspects of the process of image generation, storage, retrieval, and transformation” (ref 18, p 98). In this study, the Purdue Visualization of Rotations Test (PVRT) was used to measure one aspect of spatial ability: the rotation of objects.19 This test requires subjects to visualize a representation of a block object before and after rotation, apply this same rotational operation or series of rotational operations to another block object, and predict the correct representation of the outcome. This type of rotation represents an important component of the visuospatial strategies typically used in the instruction of group theory; for example, application of

by enabling multiple and equally valid approaches to learning the underlying concepts. This potential has been intimated in previous studies11 using POGIL to explore symmetry in chemistry, which permitted the instructor to “identify prior knowledge that interferes with the acquisition of new knowledge” (ref 11, p 213). In this study, student activities were extensively adapted from an existing guided-inquiry resource12 to conform to the POGIL learning cycle.10 In each activity, students were provided with a model or series of models. For example, Figure 1 shows an activity adapted from Vincent,12 (Programme 3, the third activity in the series), which students interrogate through a series of guided questions and subsequent application of the theory in small groups. In each activity, the models all contained some aspect of imagistic reasoning, which was then explored through guided-inquiry questioning that facilitates the alternative strategies that are possible to solve tasks relating to group theory. The activities include the use of stepwise questioning, diagrammatic and physical model manipulation of three-dimensional phenomena, and mathematical representations of the outcomes. B



Article

understanding borne from an individual student’s approach to tasks,23 and tools that develop these skills.16 In a study examining the role of imagistic reasoning in individual students’ approaches to assessment tasks in organic chemistry, Stieff recommended that the relationship between diagrammatic and imagistic reasoning should inform pedagogy, and (ref 39, p 334) [M]ore importantly, the availability of such alternative strategies suggests that the presumed fundamental need for advanced visuospatial ability to succeed in chemistry should be reconsidered and further research on improving students’ use of all available strategies is warranted. The implementation of POGIL in a topic such as group theory poses similar questions about the strategies students may successfully use to solve these tasks, and the role of pedagogy in facilitating alternative approaches. In addition to the relationships between approach and performance, there are potential affective benefits of a pedagogy that meets the needs of individuals with different abilities, and this brings an additional dimension to this study. Few studies look at relationships between affective constructs such as motivation, and purported inherent spatial abilities, and thus this research is of interest. This is true in a discipline such as chemistry and especially pertinent in a topic such as group theory, in which spatial abilities can play an important role in the affective dimensions of interest, enjoyment, and perceived competence. The following research questions are explicitly addressed in this study. Using a naturalistic style of research40 and the score and level of completion of PVRT as a key indicator of approach to spatial tasks in this POGIL classroom to discriminate between students, we ask: 1. Does level of completion of PVRT represent a useful indicator of spatial abilities? 2. Are there any differences between groups of students, separated on the basis of approaches to spatial tasks, observable in: (i) Constructs from self-determination theory relating to motivation? (ii) Individual performance on major assessment in the topic?

rotational symmetry operations to molecular representations. The PVRT has been used to ascertain relationships between spatial and mathematical abilities in children20 and preservice teachers,21 and the role of spatial abilities in learning introductory22 or organic chemistry.23 An electroencephalographic study on the cerebral processing by subjects that entailed administering the PVRT and other similar tests under strictly timed conditions indicated that approaches were on a spatial−analytic continuum.24 Willis et al.24 concluded that students who scored highly on the PVRT under timed conditions are more likely to use the intended strategy. The intended strategy is a gestalt approach, in which students imagine the representation as a three-dimensional object and then determine the sequence of rotations to apply to the new object. In this study, we call this an “imagistic” approach in accordance with definitions provided by Stieff. According to Stieff,25 researchers have consistently defined imagistic reasoning as “the process of generating and manipulating perceived analog image-like mental representations for thinking and problem solving” (ref 25, p 311). Alternatively, another approach is to use a “stepwise” strategy to pick features in the representation, without imagining the block as a whole, to determine the rotation or rotations and predict the correct outcome. The PVRT, when correlated to an accepted measure of gestalt mental manipulation, was found to be least confounded by analytic reasoning26 when other tests were found to be less clearly so.27 As time is strictly controlled to constrain analytic approaches,19 it seems reasonable that some level of incompleteness of the test may be indicative of an “alternative” analytic approach by students, though which alternative approach would of course require further study. A chemical approach to group theory, as a tool to systematically describe molecular symmetry, may include the use of predominantly visual and imagistic approaches to manipulate representations. Most instructional methods focus on physical28,29 or simulated30,31 molecular models to teach aspects of group theory, which often rely heavily on imagistic strategies to be useful to students.32 In these cases, the instructional approach may thwart individual needs when an ability to use these tools effectively is absent. This can, in addition, influence affective constructs, such as motivation toward the topic or method of instruction. Self-determination theory is a framework of sociocultural influences on motivation that comprises several interrelated and measurable constructs.33 Most relevant to this study is basic needs theory, a theory within the larger self-determination theoretical framework that suggests that intrinsic motivation is driven by the satisfaction of three basic human needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.34 Explicitly treating group theory and symmetry earlier in undergraduate35 or even high school36 chemistry curricula poses new challenges, where spatial abilities may not be fully developed or understood by the teacher and student. This situation may lead to a potential disconnect by students when a basic need for competence is not satisfied by an instructional approach tailored to imagistic reasoning. In this study, self-determination theory was used as a framework to establish sociocultural factors that may influence motivation of students toward this classroom environment.

■

CONTEXT This study centers on the implementation of a series of group theory POGIL activities in a third-year undergraduate spectroscopy course undertaken as part of studies for the chemistry major in a large Australian public university. In the Australian context, this represents the final year of a standard three-year, bachelor of science degree program, and is where group theory is typically introduced in a chemistry major. In this course, the other topics were taught in a traditional mode and the group theory topic represented one-quarter of the content. The students had previously received instruction in this fashion on related concepts in lower-division courses, including basic quantum mechanics, coordination chemistry, and general spectroscopy. Five activities were included in this group theory topic: 1. Symmetry elements and operations 2. Point groups 3. Character tables 4. Applications to chemical bonding 5. Vibrational spectroscopy The activities were facilitated in a six-week series of workshops of between 1 and 3 h in duration, which blended a mix of POGIL activity facilitation, student responses to

■

SCOPE Previous studies in science generally, and chemistry specifically, have focused on characterizing individual spatial ability,37 its relationship to aptitude for the discipline,15,38 the conceptual C



Article

symmetry to molecular properties”; and “visualize threedimensional phenomena”. The final subscale of relatedness was edited to focus on “my group”. Example items can be found in the Supporting Information. Data were collected with this instrument at the completion of this module, but before any summative assessment had been undertaken, to avoid this potentially confounding variable influencing this subjective selfreport relating to constructs such as perceived competence.

questions posed, and brief didactic presentations aligned with the POGIL philosophy. Importantly, the students had previously received instruction that used the POGIL approach at a first- and second-year level and were familiar with the pedagogy and its implementation in this context. Sample

Of the 48 students in the class, 35 volunteers completed all surveys and assessments, and are included in this data analysis. The first issue is whether this sample is representative of the population, from a demographic perspective. Three variables of sex, age, and course-weighted average marks were considered. The sample was composed of 77% males (n = 23), compared to the total population of 73% males; the average age in the sample was 23.0 years compared to the population average of 23.1 years; and the course-weighted average was 67.3% in the sample and 66.9% overall. On inspection we can confirm that the sample is approximately representative of the whole class.

Student Performance

Established summative assessment, in the form of a midsemester test, was used as an indicator of student performance on this topic. This test was undertaken after completion of all five POGIL activities. This assessment was written and scored by the instructor and pertains entirely to group theory. A sample question from this test can be found in the Supporting Information. Data Analysis

Limitations

The key criterion to assess the student approach to spatial tasks was their level of completion of the PVRT within the time allotted. The protocol for delivery of PVRT requires strict timing of the test to ensure that time-dependent alternative approaches to solving the tasks are restricted.19 All data were separated post hoc on the basis of completion of PVRT, where students who did not complete the test in the allotted time were deemed to be applying “alternative strategies” versus those who did complete the test who were deemed to be applying “imagistic strategies” to account for any observed differences in self-determination or performance as a consequence of their strategies applied to spatial tasks. Data collected from the PVRT were scored to a possible maximum of 20. Likert-scale responses from the LCQ and IMI were scored from 1 to 7, with negatively stated items recoded before analysis. The full 15-item LCQ and five subscales of IMI were each compiled into single factor scores, where 1 represents a negative response, 4 is neutral, and 7 is positive against the construct to be measured. To determine the effect size, Cohen’s d44 was calculated from the mean, standard deviation, and size of each group separated on the basis of completion of the PVRT. A Cronbach’s α value of each scale or subscale was calculated to estimate the internal consistency of the score, and a threshold of 0.7 or above recommended.43 The mid-semester test was scored as a percentage by the instructor of this module.

A post hoc analysis (see the Supporting Information) indicated that this sample size does not give rise to sufficient power to permit conclusive inferential statistics, with 1 − β well below the value of 0.80 typically used.41 Where power is insufficient, neither issue of significance or equivalence is likely to be resolved.42 Given the small sample (n = 35) and population (N = 48), and a desire to explore this study rather than make broader inferences, an effect size is a better indicator of observable differences between groups,43 and this was estimated from Cohen’s d for which a value of 0.5 or above indicates moderate to strong effects.44

■

DATA COLLECTION

Spatial Ability

A 20-item version of PVRT19 was administered to students; to minimize confounding of the outcome through application of alternative strategies that are speed related (a phenomenon known to occur), the test was strictly timed. Students were given 10 min to complete this pencil-and-paper test and instructed not to make marks on the question booklet. When the time was lapsed, students who had not completed the test were asked to leave unanswered questions blank. This test was scored by totaling all correct responses; when a question was left blank this was marked as incorrect. Data were collected with this test in the third week of the six-week module, and before any other data collection or assessment was undertaken.

■

Motivation

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Spatial Ability

Self-determination theory has a number of instruments; in this study, two were used in data collection. A 15-item Learning Climate Questionnaire, LCQ,45 was used to assess the instructor’s autonomy support in the classroom, a key factor regulating student motivation.46 A sample item from LCQ is “I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options”. A 33item Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, IMI,47,48 comprising interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort/importance, value/usefulness and relatedness subscales, assesses potentially influential indicators of student intrinsic motivation toward an event or series of events. The IMI subscales were edited to alter the focus of the item toward these activities; for example, from the perceived competence subscale “I think I did pretty well at these activities, compared to other students”. Additionally, the value/usefulness scale was amended to include aspects of importance, including “improving spatial awareness”; “relate

To determine whether the discrimination of students on the basis of the level of completion of the PVRT within the time allocated is a suitable indicator of the likely approaches taken to solve the test, the descriptive statistics for each group were calculated (Table 1). The mean scores of the two groups can be compared to previous literature citing results from the PVRT, with means reported between 11.7 in a first-year general chemistry course19 and 16.4 for geology students undertaking a geosciences elective.49 A very strong effect on score, d = 1.36, was observed, with students who completed the test more likely to achieve higher scores on the PVRT than those who did not. This is reinforced by examination of skewness and kurtosis, which illustrates the differences in dispersion of these data, and supports the premise that separation of these data gives two distinct groups. Students D



Article

Motivation

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics from the PVRT in This Study Groupa Alternative Strategies Imagistic Strategies

n

Mean

SD

Skew

Kurtosis

Sex (Male, %)

13

12.00

4.10

−0.36

−1.28

53.85

22

16.14

2.23

−1.83

4.29

90.91

Data collected with instrumentation from self-determination theory provides insights into the student perspective of influences on motivation toward the activities and the role of the instructor in facilitation. In this study, the influences of potential importance include the following: instructional autonomy support, interest and enjoyment of the activities, perceived competency in completing the activities, effort and importance of the activities, value and usefulness of the activities in learning group theory, and interpersonal interactions with their group members. The estimate of reliability for each scale of this instrument gave Cronbach α values of 0.92 for the LCQ (a single-scale instrument) and greater than 0.8 for every scale within the IMI, indicating acceptable reliability of these measures (see the Supporting Information). In general, the student perspective of these aspects was found to be neutral to positively viewed for both groups of students (Table 2). No differences were observed as a result of

a

Separation of students on the basis of completion of the test displays differences in their visuospatial aptitude.

in this study who were likely to apply imagistic strategies to solve problems on the PVRT have high visuospatial aptitude, while those applying alternative strategies have moderate to poor visuospatial aptitude. The average number of questions completed by students in the alternative strategies group was 16 of the 20 items, a significant proportion of the test, suggesting those who could not complete this test were authentically attempting to answer the test questions using more timeintensive strategies. Importantly, the majority of the group who completed the test (and scored highly) are found to be male, while the group applying alternative strategies are found to comprise a greater proportion of female students. Sex differences have been observed with PVRT19 and in general with other rotational tasks,14 which may16 or may not17 influence performance on other tasks thought to require spatial aptitude. Because of this small sample and the potential for individual students to be identifiable within this data set, this issue will not be explored explicitly. Given the group who have poor visuospatial aptitude at the time this test was taken comprise approximately onethird of the class, the impact of their abilities coming into this class on their perception of the experience and ultimate assessment outcomes during this class are inherently interesting to this study of an atypical instructional approach to the topic of group theory in a chemical context. These data confirm that time is crucial issue in the delivery of the PVRT, with speed likely to be an indicator of application of imagistic strategies to solve the items correctly. It is concluded that separation of PVRT scores for these two groups is an appropriate treatment, however it may not be appropriate to separate subsequent data on this basis. An alternative approach might be to separate the students on the basis of an arbitrary score on the PVRT, but this does not address the primary aim to explore how students who apply alternative strategies to solve spatial tasks might perform in and perceive this POGIL classroom. The grouping method is a concern, because students may have missed a question or two on the PVRT, but still be applying imagistic strategies; conversely, a student may have guessed the answers to all questions. To alleviate this concern, each analysis will be repeated by removing students from the alternative strategies group who did not complete the PVRT yet scored higher than the median (16). Likewise, the same analysis will be repeated by removing students who did complete the PVRT yet scored lower than the median from the imagistic strategies group. See the Supporting Information for full details. Each conclusion can then be reinforced or rejected based on whether the repeated analyses with reduced data sets concur with the finding in each case. The two reduced data sets both should have similar effect sizes on observable phenomena if this original separation into the imagistic and alternate strategies groups is robust.

Table 2. Summary of Scores of Autonomy Support and Intrinsic Motivation Based on Level of Completion of PVRT Alternative Strategies (n = 13) Scale

Measure

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Effect Size Cohen’s d

LCQa

Autonomy Support Interest/ Enjoyment Perceived Competence Effort/ Importance Value/ Usefulness Relatedness

5.32

0.57

5.62

0.91

0.37

4.66

0.91

3.92

1.14

0.70

4.21

1.30

4.41

1.34

0.15

5.15

1.07

5.09

0.86

0.18

5.35

0.71

5.15

1.02

0.22

5.32

0.97

5.56

0.94

0.26

IMIb

a b

Imagistic Strategies (n = 22)

The LCQ had 15 items, with possible scores ranging from 1 to 7. The IMI had 33 items, with possible scores ranging from 1 to 7.

instructional autonomy support, perceived competence, their effort and importance, value and usefulness, or relatedness to their team members. The most notable observation in separating the students into two groups was centered on the concept of interest in and enjoyment of the activities. A strong effect on interest and enjoyment of the activities was found, d = 0.70, with students who were applying alternative strategies to solve problems on the PVRT more likely to be interested in and enjoy the activities, or conversely students who applied imagistic strategies more likely to find these activities less interesting. When removing students who did not complete the PVRT yet scored higher than the median (16), d = 0.61, and again students who did complete the PVRT yet scored lower than the median, d = 0.64, this casually observable difference in this class was confirmed. The subscale testing interest and enjoyment comprised items such as “I enjoyed doing these activities very much” and “I would describe these activities as very interesting”, indicating that students who are likely to apply alternative strategies to solve spatial tasks find this approach more engaging than those who can apply imagistic strategies. This observation supports the premise that using POGIL to facilitate alternate strategies E



Article

toward the experience, a key attribute of an active learning pedagogy, such as POGIL. The results show that there were no observable differences in student performance in this classroom as a consequence of different strategies possible for solving the tasks presented. This instructional approach is found to successfully develop student conceptual understanding by facilitating multiple strategies for correctly solving group theory problems with chemical applications. In all cases, students were able to find effective individual strategies in this POGIL classroom. This instructional approach could be equally valid in many areas of chemistry that rely on an understanding of spatial relationshipsfor example, stereochemistry and crystallography particularly where these topics are traditionally taught solely with visuospatial techniques. Instructors of these topics may wish to measure individual visuospatial aptitude to explore similar issues in their classrooms, particularly where there has been a noted student disengagement from the tasks. There are limitations to this study, most obviously that findings from a convenient sample from a single classroom at one time in the final year of a chemistry major may be unique to this context. We also anticipate future studies with multiple measures of spatial ability will determine whether level of completion of the PVRT is a robust measure of a spatial reasoning strategy. Future work will use the PVRT and other spatial aptitude tests as a diagnostic early in the module to provide information to students about their individual visuospatial aptitude and explicitly communicate that multiple strategies are available for equally successful outcomes. Subsequent testing of visuospatial aptitude at the completion of this module will explore whether this ability can be developed through this module, or is inherent to an individual and cannot be taught. These additional studies, potentially in different locales, will mimic this research to collect more data to address the underlying lack of statistical power owing to the small sample size.

for approaching abstract tasks is likely to affect student motivation toward the experience. Students who cannot necessarily imagine abstract concepts find they need alternative strategies to be able to succeed in this topic. Where these needs are facilitated by appropriate instructional methods, these students’ interest and enjoyment of the activities are fulfilled, more so than for students who can apply imagistic reasoning, who have a neutral perception of the activities. Student Performance

After observing the differences in student interest and enjoyment as a consequence of visuospatial aptitude, the final issue is one of competence. The student self-report of perceived competence illustrated no observable differences between the groups, d = 0.15, with a marginally positive mean response to these items. The items within the subscale of perceived competence included statements such as “I think I am pretty good at these activities” and “I am satisfied with my performance at these activities”. To explore whether this perceived competence carries over to performance, the mean scores for each group of students on the mid-semester test, which dealt solely with group theory, is given in Table 3. The mean scores of mid-semester test results Table 3. Summary of Mid-Semester Test Results Mid-Semester Test Group

Mean, %

SD, %

Effect Size Cohen’s d

Alternative Strategies (n = 13) Imagistic Strategies (n = 22)

62.1 64.9

28.3 23.1

0.11

are virtually indistinguishable between students applying alternate strategies (M = 62.1%) and those applying imagistic strategies (M = 64.9%), with a very weak effect size of d = 0.11 reflecting this observation. This suggests that student performance was equally successful in the assessment task undertaken immediately after the completion of the POGIL class. When removing students who did not complete the PVRT yet scored higher than the median (16), and again students who did complete the PVRT yet scored lower than the median, these observations were confirmed.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

Extended data analysis; sample question from the assessment; further information on the self-determination theory instrumentation. This material is available via the Internet at http:// pubs.acs.org.

■

■

CONCLUSIONS These findings indicate that improving students’ use of multiple strategies during instruction can fulfill individual needs, promote motivation toward studying the topic, and ultimately lead to success during assessment. The results of this work are therefore congruent with Stieff’s contention39 that advanced visuospatial ability is not necessarily a requirement for success in chemistry. The separation of students into two groups on the basis of completion of the PVRT seems to be a useful method for exploring individual approaches to spatial tasks and subsequent aptitude on this test. This study illustrates that differences in student motivation toward the instructional approach, as a consequence of spatial ability, were observable in this POGIL group theory module. Specifically, differences in the motivational constructs of interest and enjoyment were found, in which students with a low visuospatial aptitude were more likely to be interested in the activities. This supports the premise that methods of instruction that can meet individual needs are likely to have a positive influence on motivation

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the students for participating in this study by volunteering their data. The authors are grateful to The POGIL Project that has reviewed and endorsed the activities used in this study. We appreciate the support of the University of South Florida in providing sabbatical leave for Jennifer Lewis. Collection of data described in this work was authorized by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Curtin University (project number SMEC-107-11). The authors would like to pay respect to the indigenous members of our community by F



Article

(23) Pribyl, J. R.; Bodner, G. M. Spatial Ability and Its Role in Organic Chemistry: A Study of Four Organic Courses. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1987, 24, 229−240. (24) Willis, S. G.; Wheatley, G. H.; Mitchell, O. R. Cerebral Processing of Spatial and Verbal-Analytic Tasks: An EEG Study. Neuropsychologia 1979, 17, 473−484. (25) Stieff, M.; Hegarty, M.; Dixon, B. Alternative Strategies for Spatial Reasoning with Diagrams Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. In Alternative Strategies for Spatial Reasoning with Diagrams; Goel, A., Jamnik, M., Narayanan, N., Eds. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, 2010; Vol. 6170, pp 115−127. (26) Guay, R. B.; McDaniel, E. D.; Angelo, S. Analytic Factor Confounding Spatial Ability Measurement. In Correlates of Performance on Spatial Aptitude Test; Guay, R. B., McDaniel, E. D., Eds.; U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences and Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, 1978. (27) Lean, G.; Clements, M. A. K. Spatial Ability, Visual Imagery, and Mathematical Performance. Educ. Stud. Math. 1981, 12, 267−299. (28) Flint, E. B. Teaching Point-Group Symmetry with ThreeDimensional Models. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 907−909. (29) Schiltz, H. K.; Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. Physical Models That Provide Guidance in Visualization Deconstruction in an Inorganic Context. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 873−877. (30) Johnston, D. H. Symmetry @ Otterbein. http://symmetry. otterbein.edu (accessed Sep 2013). (31) Wang, L. Using Molecular Modeling in Teaching Group Theory Analysis of the Infrared Spectra of Organometallic Compounds. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 360−364. (32) Carroll, J. B. Abilities in the Domain of Visual Perception. In Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor Analytic Studies; Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: Cambridge, U.K., 1993; pp 304−363. (33) Reeve, J.; Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. Self-Determination Theory: A Dialectical Framework for Understanding Sociocultural Influences on Student Motivation. In Big Theories Revisited. McInerney, D. M., Van Etten, S., McInerney, D. M., Van Etten, S., Eds.; Information Age Publishing, Inc.: Charlotte, NC, 2004; pp 31−60. (34) Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227−268. (35) Kettle, S. F. A. Spectroscopy and Direct Products: Simpler Yet Deeper. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 1444−1450. (36) Grove, N. P.; Guerin, N. P.; Collins, D. J.; López, J. J.; Bretz, S. L.; Zhou, H.-C. Designing, Teaching, and Evaluating a Unit on Symmetry and Crystallography in the High School Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 946. (37) Titus, S.; Horsman, E. Characterizing and Improving Spatial Visualization Skills. J. Geosci. Educ. 2009, 57, 242−254. (38) Carter, C. S.; Larussa, M. A.; Bodner, G. M. A Study of Two Measures of Spatial Ability as Predictors of Success in Different Levels of General Chemistry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1987, 24, 645−657. (39) Stieff, M. When Is a Molecule Three Dimensional? A TaskSpecific Role for Imagistic Reasoning in Advanced Chemistry. Sci. Educ. 2011, 95, 310−336. (40) Cohen, L.; Manion, L.; Morrison, K. Research Methods in Education, 6th ed.; Routledge: London; New York, 2007. (41) Thomas, L. Retrospective Power Analysis. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11, 276−280. (42) Lewis, S. E.; Lewis, J. E. The Same or Not the Same: Equivalence as an Issue in Educational Research. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1408. (43) Murphy, K. R.; Davidshofer, C. O. Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications, 6th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005. (44) Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1988. (45) Williams, G. C.; Saizow, R.; Ross, L.; Deci, E. L. Motivation Underlying Career Choice for Internal Medicine and Surgery. Soc. Sci. Med. 1997, 45, 1705−1713.

acknowledging the Nyungar people, the traditional owners of the land on which this study was conducted.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Cotton, F. A. Chemical Applications of Group Theory; John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1990. (2) Committee on Professional Training Inorganic Chemistry Supplement. Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor’s Degree Programs; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008. (3) Jean, Y. Elements of Group Theory and Applications. In Molecular Orbitals of Transition Metal Complexes; Oxford University Press: Oxford, U.K., 2005; pp 205−252. (4) Craig, N. C.; Lacuesta, N. N. Applications of Group Theory: Infrared and Raman Spectra of the Isomers of 1,2-dichloroethylene: A Physical Chemistry Experiment. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1199−1205. (5) Stieff, M. Mental Rotation and Diagrammatic Reasoning in Science. Learn. Instruct. 2007, 17, 219−234. (6) Spencer, J. N. New Directions in Teaching Chemistry: A Philosophical and Pedagogical Basis. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 566− 569. (7) Lewis, S. E.; Lewis, J. E. Departing from Lectures: An Evaluation of a Peer-Led Guided Inquiry Alternative. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 135−139. (8) Lewis, S. E.; Lewis, J. E. Seeking Effectiveness and Equity in a Large College Chemistry Course: An HLM Investigation of Peer-Led Guided Inquiry. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2008, 45, 794−811. (9) Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. POGIL: An Overview. In Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL); American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008; Vol. 994, pp 1−13. (10) Moog, R. S.; Creegan, F. J.; Hanson, D. M.; Spencer, J. N.; Straumanis, A.; Bunce, D. M.; Wolfskill, T. Process-Oriented GuidedInquiry Learning. In Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching; Pienta, N. J., Cooper, M. M., Greenbowe, T. J., Eds.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009; Vol. II, pp 90−107. (11) Luxford, C. J.; Crowder, M. W.; Bretz, S. L. A Symmetry POGIL Activity for Inorganic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 89, 211−214. (12) Vincent, A. Molecular Symmetry and Group Theory: A Programmed Introduction to Chemical Applications, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, U.K., 2001. (13) Lohman, D. F. Spatial Ability: A Review and Reanalysis of the Correlational Literature; School of Education, Stanford University: Palo Alto, CA, 1979. (14) Harle, M.; Towns, M. A Review of Spatial Ability Literature, Its Connection to Chemistry, and Implications for Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 88, 351−360. (15) Lubinski, D. Spatial Ability and STEM: A Sleeping Giant for Talent Identification and Development. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2010, 49, 344−351. (16) Coleman, S. L.; Gotch, A. J. Spatial Perception Skills of Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 206. (17) Ferk, V.; Vrtacnik, M.; Blejec, A.; Gril, A. Students’ Understanding of Molecular Structure Representations. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25, 1227−1245. (18) Lohman, D. F. Spatial Ability and G. In Human Abilities: Their Nature and Measurement; Dennis, I., Tapsfield, P., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, 1996; pp 97−116. (19) Bodner, G. M.; Guay, R. B. The Purdue Visualization of Rotations Test. Chem. Educator 1997, 2, 1−17. (20) Guay, R. B.; McDaniel, E. D. The Relationship between Mathematics Achievement and Spatial Abilities among Elementary School Children. J. Res. Math. Educ. 1977, 8, 211−215. (21) Battista, M. T.; Wheatley, G. H.; Talsma, G. The Importance of Spatial Visualization and Cognitive Development for Geometry Learning in Preservice Elementary Teachers. J. Res. Math. Educ. 1982, 13, 332−340. (22) Bodner, G. M.; McMillen, T. L. B. Cognitive Restructuring as an Early Stage in Problem Solving. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1986, 23, 727−737. G



Article

(46) Black, A. E.; Deci, E. L. The Effects of Instructors’ Autonomy Support and Students’ Autonomous Motivation on Learning Organic Chemistry: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 740−756. (47) McAuley, E.; Duncan, T.; Tammen, V. V. Psychometric Properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a Competitive Sport Setting: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Res. Q. Exercise Sport 1989, 60, 48−58. (48) Deci, E. L.; Eghrari, H.; Patrick, B. C.; Leone, D. R. Facilitating Internalization: The Self-Determination Theory Perspective. J. Pers. 1994, 62, 119−142. (49) Colaianne, B. A.; Powell, M. G. Developing Transferrable Geospatial Skills in a Liberal Arts Context. J. Geosci. Educ. 2011, 59, 93−97.

H


Supporting Alternative Strategies for Learning Chemical Applications

Recommend Documents