Using the Science Writing Heuristic in the General ... - ACS Publications

Research: Science and Education edited by

Chemical Education Research

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

Using the Science Writing Heuristic in the General Chemistry Laboratory To Improve Students’ Academic Performance

Vickie M. Williamson Texas A & M University College Station, TX 77823

W

Jason R. Poock Marshalltown Community College, Marshalltown, IA 50158 K. A. Burke Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, IA 50011-3111 Thomas J. Greenbowe* Department of Chemistry, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, IA 50011-3111; *[email protected] Brian M. Hand Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242

Currently there is a lack of evidence that college general chemistry laboratory contributes to students’ overall understanding of science (1, 2). In attempts to address the problem, research studies have begun to focus on using guided-inquiry activities, collaborative learning, and different frameworks for promoting thinking and situated active learning within chemistry laboratories. From these studies, a number of critical elements for improving student understanding have emerged. These critical elements include: • The role of the instructor • Degree of engagement of students in taking responsibility for their own learning • Types of learning activities • Quality of instructor–student interactions • Quality and type of laboratory notebook format written by students

To examine the influence of the laboratory experience and whether or not the type of teaching done by laboratory instructors has an impact on student achievement, we implemented a two-semester longitudinal study that tracked 78 students across their first and second semesters in both the laboratory and lecture components of a general chemistry course. This study was designed to address the overall question: When topics investigated in the laboratory segment of the course closely parallel topics presented in the lecture section of the course, do students who experience effective inquiry approaches transfer what they have learned in laboratory to homework, quizzes, and examinations administered in the lecture portion of the course better than students who have not experienced effective inquiry approaches in the laboratory?

content knowledge, training and mentoring of instructors, and the lack of influence of traditional lectures on student academic performance. Prior content knowledge has been identified as an important factor in the learning process and in student achievement in science (3–11). Researchers place importance on determining what prior content knowledge students bring into the learning situation. Ausubel, Novak, and Hanessian (12) have argued that instructors should ascertain what students know and begin instruction based upon where students are with respect to their prior knowledge. Based on a semester-long study, Roehrig, Luft, Kurdziel, and Turner (13) have recommended that for inquiry-based laboratory work, teaching assistants (TAs) must understand the need to focus, question, and challenge students at all stages of the laboratory period. Adequate mentoring, followup, and feedback about the TAs’ effectiveness while they are teaching is critical. There exists a wealth of information contending that traditional lecture is an ineffective mode of learning for most students and that students can learn science content without a traditional lecture component as the main vehicle of the course (14–22). In a multi-institution study, Hake (23) found that students involved in an “active learning or interactive engagement” course outperformed students involved in a traditional lecture course on a test involving students’ conceptual understanding of Newton’s laws of motion.

An Overview of the Science Writing Heuristic Factors helping instructors to deliver effective laboratory instruction (13, 24–25) include: • Facilitating inquiry activities • Knowing how students learn • Promoting students’ asking questions

Background

• Motivating students to do their best

There were a number of noteworthy criteria that shaped the theoretical framework for this study. These included prior www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

While these focus on the role of the instructor, other research has shown that incorporating writing (26–28) as well

Vol. 84 No. 8 August 2007

•

Journal of Chemical Education

1371

Research: Science and Education

as using collaborative guided-inquiry and the learning cycle (29, 30) in laboratory are effective active learning techniques that help students to study chemistry. An approach incorporating some of the critical elements described above is the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH). The SWH approach helps students do inquiry science laboratory work by structuring the laboratory notebook in a format that guides students to answer directed questions instead of using a traditional lab report format (title, purpose, procedure, data, results, conclusion) (31–38). Figure 1 provides an outline of instructor and student templates for the SWH lab format. As part of this approach, students are required to engage in dialog with their laboratory partner(s); the group as a whole is required to discuss the set up and results obtained from the experiment. Keys, Hand, and colleagues (32) have discussed the theoretical basis of the science writing heuristic approach and have presented evidence for its effectiveness in the science labora-

Science Writing Heuristic, Teacher Template 1. Exploration of pre-instruction understanding through individual or group concept mapping or working through a computer simulation. 2. Pre-laboratory activities: informal writing, making observations, brainstorming, and posing questions. 3. Participation in laboratory activity. 4. Negotiation Phase I: Writing personal meanings for laboratory activity (e.g., writing journals).

tory. The SWH approach involves students in collaborative inquiry activities, negotiation of conceptual understanding, and individual reflective writing (31, 35, 39–42). The SWH template encourages students to talk about, deliberate, and negotiate their understandings of chemistry concepts. Using the SWH approach, teachers actively guide students to help them understand what they are doing and why they are doing it and also to develop conceptual understanding. The SWH strategy mirrors the processes of dialog and argumentation that scientists use to construct a theory or a concept. The SWH technique is consistent with pedagogical and philosophical views of doing inquiry learning as outlined by Lawson, Abraham, and Renner (43), Spencer (44), Farrell, Moog, and Spencer (45), and Herron and Nurrenbern (46). Successfully implementing the Science Writing Heuristic approach requires a student-centered learning environment. Students need to take charge of the laboratory experiments they do. Discussing beginning questions, forming groups, assigning specific tasks in order to design and perform laboratory experiments, and analyzing and discussing resulting data as an entire class helps students to take ownership. In the SWH approach, students must make a claim (inference) about what was learned through laboratory experimentation and provide evidence to support that claim. Then, through reflective writing, students continue to negotiate understanding and derive meaning from the laboratory experiments they conducted (38). Several research studies have shown the SWH approach promotes an increase in students’ understanding of science at the secondary school level (42, 47, 48). These studies have

5. Negotiation Phase II: Sharing and comparing data interpretations in small groups (e.g., making a graph based on data contributed by all students in the class). 6. Negotiation Phase III: Comparing science ideas to textbooks or other printed resources (e.g., writing group notes in response to focus questions). 7. Negotiation Phase IV: Individual reflection and writing (e.g., creating a presentation such as a poster or report for a larger audience). 8. Exploration of post-instruction understanding through concept mapping, group discussion, or writing a clear explanation.

Features of a Traditional Instructor’s Approach to Lab •

Tells students what to do and what will happen; beginning questions are not discussed.

•

Allows individuals or pairs to work separately from the class. Assigns tasks to the students.

•

Does not promote sharing or analysis of class data. Shows students how to do calculations and tells students what their results mean.

•

Allows students to leave immediately when they are finished with their work.

•

Provides opportunities for students to discuss beginning questions.

•

Sets up the laboratory, making it conducive for studentcentered work.

•

Allows students to assign their own groups and tasks.

•

Encourages students to tabulate class data on the chalkboard.

•

Encourages students to analyze and discuss class data as a group.

•

Guides a class discussion of concepts covered in the laboratory.

Science Writing Heuristic, Student Template 1. Beginning ideas: What are my questions?

Features of a SWH Instructor’s Approach to Lab

2. Tests: What did I do? How did I stay safe? 3. Observations: What did I see? 4. Claims: What can I claim? 5. Evidence: How do I know? Why am I making these claims? 6. Reading: How do my ideas compare to ideas proposed by others? 7. Reflection: How have my ideas changed? 8. Writing: What is the best explanation that clarifies what I have learned? Figure 1. The SWH teacher template of teacher-designed activities to promote understanding of the lab; the SWH student template suggests questions to guide students’ inquiry into the lab experience.

1372


•

Figure 2. Characteristics of a traditional laboratory instructor’s approach to lab compared to a laboratory instructor who effectively implements the SWH approach.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


shown it is helpful if both the students and instructor “buy into” the SWH approach for it to be successful. Our initial pilot studies in using the science writing heuristic approach at the first-year chemistry level (49) showed similar results. Good implementation of the SWH approach was beneficial compared to poor implementation and compared to traditional verification laboratory practices and reporting format. Figure 2 compares characteristics of traditional instructors to instructors who effectively implement the Science Writing Heuristic approach. Analyses of the SWH approach, along with studies by Tien (50), Rickey (51), Tien, Rickey, and Stacy (52), and Stacy (53) show a connection between effective chemistry laboratory teaching and learning and increased student performance on lecture examinations. These studies also demonstrated that even though chemistry laboratory experiments are written in an inquiry format, if teaching and learning is not effective, then student performance on chemistry lecture examinations is not what it could be. Poock (37) and Rudd (49) found that students who willingly embrace a collaborative inquiry approach to doing science laboratory activities exhibit better academic success in the lecture portion of the course. Method

Subjects The science writing heuristic approach was implemented at Iowa State University in the laboratory component of a general chemistry course for science and engineering majors for an entire academic year (a two-semester sequence). The majority of learners were first-year college students with an average age of 20 and an average ACT composite score of 21. These students were majors in materials science, construction engineering, physics, biology, and so forth. During the first semester of the course, two researchers observed a total of 313 students in randomly selected laboratory sections. During the second-semester course, two researchers observed a total of 164 students in randomly selected laboratory sections. Of the 164 students the two researchers observed, only 78 students were registered during both semesters of the course. These 78 students (enrolled in both the lecture and laboratory portions of the two-semester sequence) and their instructors are the focus of this research. The subjects were present for 90% or more of all laboratory experiments, completed 90% or more of all laboratory assignments, and were present for all lecture examinations.

Topics Presented in the Course The same instructor taught both semesters of the course. Content explored followed the sequence of topics presented in the textbook used (54), which is typical of most traditional college-level general chemistry texts. Content investigated in the laboratory component closely paralleled topics presented in the lecture portion of the course, including: measurement; atoms, molecules, and elements; stoichiometry; thermochemistry; electronic structure of atoms; periodic properties of elements; chemical bonding; molecular geometry; gas laws; intermolecular forces; properties of solutions; chemical kinetics; chemical equilibria; acid–base equilibria; thermodynamics; electrochemistry; and metals and nonmetals. www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Assessment of Prior Chemistry Knowledge To provide a baseline comparison of all students enrolled in the laboratory portion of the course, the American Chemical Society California Diagnostic Test, Form 1993 (CALD) (55) was administered during the first week of the semester. This instrument was developed to assess requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities for success in a traditional general chemistry course. The CALD had been administered to students at ISU in this course for science and engineering majors over the previous 10 years. It has been useful in predicting student success in the course, in part because it measures prior chemistry knowledge (55, 56). The CALD was used in this study to determine whether there were any initial differences in chemistry knowledge for students in laboratory sections taught by different laboratory instructors. Raw CALD scores were converted to percentage for comparative statistical purposes.

Characteristics of Traditional versus SWH Approaches Two experienced observers rated the degree of implementation of the Science Writing Heuristic approach by teaching assistants who were assigned to various laboratory sections in the course. Researchers were present in each laboratory section for 40–45 minutes for 10 different laboratory activities both semesters. Instructor characteristics that observers considered to be successful implementation of the SWH approach included: • Providing opportunities for students to discuss beginning questions • Encouraging students to self-assign groups and tasks needed to complete the laboratory experiment • Having students record individual data on the chalkboard, as part of a class data set • Encouraging quality and quantity of scientific dialog exchanged among students and between student(s) and instructor • Guiding, but not directing, a class discussion at the end of the laboratory session over relevant concepts covered

The observers assessed the amount of scientific dialog exchanged among students and between student(s) and the instructor. A discussion of scientific and chemical principles involved in the laboratory was classified as a deeper engagement compared to an exchange of factual or procedural information with one another. Scientific dialog that involved a greater number of students (four or more) was considered to be a greater acceptance of the SWH approach on the students’ part compared to a discussion that involved a smaller number of students (three or fewer) (57). Student response to the SWH approach was considered to be more successful as: 1. The number of discussions increased among students within a group or between students and their instructor. 2. The number of students involved in those discussions increased.


•


1373


Instructors who were able to foster this type of classroom climate were ranked higher than instructors whose students exhibited a lack of involvement in scientific dialog. The observers used a rating chart and their observations were converted to a numerical score for each TA. Scores for each TA were summed and observers independently classified TAs as “high” or “low”. Researchers compared lists and found that their classification of TAs matched (with an inter-rater reliability of 0.97) (58, 59). Teaching assistants were rated at the end of the first and second semesters of the course as either “high” or “low” in ability to implement the SWH approach to the fullest extent possible. Thus, over two semesters, students were assigned to one of four groups. They could have had a TA ranked “high” for both semesters, a TA ranked “high” for the first semester and “low” for the second semester, a TA ranked “low” for the first semester and “high” for the second semester, or, a TA ranked “low” for both semesters. These groups will be referred to as H–H, H–L, L–H, and L–L, respectively. To determine what effect, if any, the SWH approach had on student academic performance in lecture, the total number of points earned in the course was used (first-semester total points and second-semester total points). Total points earned in either semester of the course included homework; lecture assignments; quizzes; four, one-hour exams; and the instructor-written comprehensive final examination. No points earned in the laboratory component of the course were included in the lecture portion total points. Since implementation of the SWH approach takes place in laboratory, using total points earned in the lecture portion of the course reduced possible laboratory instructor bias in grading. In the lecture course, there is no connection between student enrollment in a given lecture and recitation section and the laboratory section in which the student is enrolled. Students were not likely to have the same TA in both laboratory and recitation. Thus, all grading in the lecture portion of the course was done independently of the laboratory section in which the SWH approach was implemented.

Training and Mentoring Teaching Assistants The teaching assistants involved in this study received three days of inquiry laboratory and recitation training and one additional day of SWH training prior to the start of classes. Burke and colleagues provide a description of a training course for instructors using the SWH approach (60). Training included developing a sound chemistry knowledge base, with an emphasis on safety, grading protocols, and experiment familiarity (61, 62). During training, an effort was made to demonstrate to TAs how to make the connection between topics presented in the laboratory and lecture portions of the course. The TAs experienced several activities designed to illustrate how to guide students to see that concepts and content knowledge presented in laboratory connected with lecture topics. Teaching assistants were also provided with strategies for mentoring students. For example, teaching assistants were reminded that, during the laboratory period, they should be accessible for interaction with their students and should circulate among them, asking questions focusing on whether or not students understand concepts involved in the experi1374


•

ment (63). Further probing questioning by instructors should assist students in the process of synthesizing concepts, both during experimentation and during post-laboratory discussion. Training sessions also included: presentations and activities that emphasized academic content knowledge and problem-solving skills; pedagogical content knowledge, methods, and skills; learning theory; and modeling student-centered active learning strategies (64, 65). Excerpts of the use of the SWH approach are available on a public Web site hosting streaming digital video segments of some typical instructor– student interactions: http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/SWH/ homepage.htm (accessed May 2007).

Research Questions Three specific research questions were investigated in this study: 1. Did the laboratory instructor’s ability to implement the Science Writing Heuristic approach in laboratory have an effect on student academic performance, as measured by total points earned in the lecture portion of the first semester of a general chemistry course? 2. Did the laboratory instructor’s ability to implement the Science Writing Heuristic approach in laboratory have an effect on student academic performance, as measured by total points earned in the lecture portion of the second semester of a general chemistry course? 3. Compared to peers who were not taught with the Science Writing Heuristic approach, does using the Science Writing Heuristic approach help students who enter the course with low chemistry content knowledge to improve their success in the course? (Success in the course is determined by comparing entering CALD scores to total points earned in the lecture component of the course.)

Results

Pre-Course Chemistry Content Knowledge Do the student groups (H–H; H–L; L–H; and L–L) start the course with same chemistry content knowledge as measured by the American Chemical Society California Diagnostic Test, Form 1993 (CALD)? Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the four groups on the CALD. For the subjects involved in this study, the average CALD score was 27.24 (61.9%). The CALD average for students in the class as a whole was 24.55 (55.79%), n 685, SD 6.95, SE 2.82, K–R 211 0.84. For the 10 years that these data have been collected for this course, averages have been stable, at around 56–57%. The national mean score for the CALD test was reported2 as 20.45 (46.47%), SD 7.56, SE 3.14, K–R 21 0.83. An analysis of variance shows that there is no statistically significant difference among the four groups of students based on their beginning chemistry content knowledge (F 1.6367, p 0.1880). This indicates that on average, students in all four groups started the course with a similar chemistry content background.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


Table 1. Comparison of Students’ Diagnostic Test Results by Effectiveness Rating of Their Lab Instructors CALD Scoresa TA Rankingsb (Students)

Mean, %

Standard Deviation

H–HN(N 25)

63.05

16.86

H–LN (N 24)

66.17

13.04

L–HN (N 13)

56.04

14.07

L–LN (N 17)

58.68

12.45

a

American Chemical Society California Diagnostic Test, Form 1993 (CALD): see text for more details. b First- and second-semester assessment of teaching assistants classified as either “high” or “low” in their effectiveness in incorporating the SWH approach during lab instruction.

Table 2. Comparison of Students’ Average First-Semester Course Scores by Effectiveness Rating of Their Lab Instructors TA Rankingsa (Students)

Average, %

Standard Deviation

H–HN(N 26)

83.115

06.726

H–LN (N 24)

81.625

08.459

L–HN (N 13)

74.661

12.083

L–LN (N 17)

74.847

11.385

aFirst-

and second-semester assessment of teaching assistants classified as either “high” or “low” in their effectiveness in incorporating the SWH approach during lab instruction.

Table 3. Comparisona of All Pairs of Means for First-Semester Course Scores, by Lab Instructor Effectiveness Rating H–H Statistic

H–L Statistic

L–H Statistic

The first question addressed in this study was whether students with an instructor who effectively implemented the SWH approach in the laboratory earned more total points in the fall semester lecture portion of the course compared to students who had a laboratory instructor who did not fully implement the SWH approach. Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the groups on the total number of points earned in the lecture portion of the course during the first semester. An analysis of variance shows that at the end of the first semester, a statistically significant difference emerged between the groups of students based upon this total number of points earned in the lecture portion of the course (F 4.298, p 0.0074). Table 3 shows the results of a means comparison of all pairs on the first-semester average percentage of the total number of course points using a Tukey– Kramer HSD (honestly significant differences) procedure (66–69) with p < 0.0167. The H–H group scored statistically better than either the L–L group or the L–H group. Remember that, at this time, students had had one semester with a teaching assistant assessed as either “high” or “low” in implementing SWH practices. Table 2 indicates a clear difference in lecture performance (average total point scores) between students having a TA rated “high” compared to students having a TA rated “low” for the first semester in the laboratory. Since we are interested in the strength or magnitude of the effect of the treatment—implementation of the SWH approach during the first semester of the course—a value for ω 2 (56, 66–69) was calculated and determined to be 0.121. The ω 2 value represents the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable (“academic performance in chemistry”) that can be accounted for by the levels (“H” and “L”) of the independent variable (“instructor ranking”) (70). An interpretation of this value is that 12.1% of the variance in the difference in mean scores between the H and L groups can be attributed to effective implementation of the SWH approach.

Subsequent SWH Effects on Academic Performance

H–L

5.4406b

7.0682

L–H

0.6313

b

0.9838

8.3983

0.1367

b

1.4684

8.8357

L–L

L–L Statistic

Initial SWH Effects on Academic Performance

9.6038

a

The Tukey–Kramer HSD (honestly significant differences) test for multiple comparisons, with p < 0.0167. bPositive values show pairs of means that are significantly different.

Table 4. Comparison of Students’ Average Second-Semester Course Scores by Effectiveness Rating of Their Lab Instructors TA Rankingsa (Students)

Average, %

Standard Deviation

H–HN(N 23)

83.726

07.713

H–LN (N 24)

77.466

11.734

L–HN (N 11)

75.127

11.846

L–LN (N 17)

67.841

05.614

a

First- and second-semester assessment of teaching assistants classified as either “high” or “low” in their effectiveness in incorporating the SWH approach during lab instruction.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

The second question addressed in this study was what effect the TA’s ability to implement the SWH approach had on students’ academic performance (total points earned) at the end of the second semester. Operatively, the question was whether students who had a laboratory instructor who effectively implemented the SWH approach for both the first and second semesters of the course, earned more total points in the spring semester lecture portion of the course compared to students who did not have an instructor in the laboratory who effectively implemented the SWH approach for both the first and second semesters of the course. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for the groups on the average percentage of the total number of course points for the second semester. An analysis of variance shows that a statistically significant difference emerged among the groups of students based upon total points earned in the second-semester lecture portion of the course (F 6.071, p 0.0010). The average total points earned at the end of the second semester correlated with the level of SWH approach as implemented by the teaching assistants. Students who had a TA rated “high”


•


1375


Table 5. Comparisona of All Pairs of Means for Second-Semester Course Scores, by Lab Instructor Effectiveness Rating H–H Statistic

H–L Statistic

L–H Statistic

L–L Statistic

H–L

2.751b

8.914

L–H

2.721

b

8.904

13.1670

L–L

6.009b

0.163

4.662

H–H

10.591

a

The Tukey–Kramer HSD test for multiple comparisons, with p < 0.0167. Positive values show pairs of means that are significantly different.

b

Table 6. Correlation of CALD Scores and the Probabilities of Students’ Success in a General Chemistry Course Taught with the Science Writing Heuristic Approach Probability Values from Logistic Regresssion Analysis CALD Scorea

Fall and Spring Semesters, 2002 (all students)

Fall Semester, 2002 (treatment students)

Spring Semester, 2003 (treatment students)

05

0.075

——

——

10

0.166

0.069

0.371

15

0.329

0.340

0.558

20

0.545

0.782

0.730

25

0.746

0.961

0.853

30

0.878

0.994

0.926

35

0.946

0.999

0.964

40

0.977

1.000

0.983

a

American Chemical Society California Diagnostic Test, Form 1993 (CALD): see text for more detail.

in terms of implementation of the SWH approach earned more points in the lecture portion of the course compared to students who had a TA rated “low” in implementation of the SWH approach. Table 5 shows the results of a means comparison of all pairs using a Tukey–Kramer procedure. The H–H group scored statistically better than the L–L group. There were no significant differences among any of the other groups. The data presented in Table 4 and Table 5 shows a clear difference in performance of students in the lecture portion of the course from having a teaching assistant who was ranked “high” in terms of implementation of the SWH approach in laboratory both semesters compared to a teaching assistant who was ranked “low” for implementation of the SWH approach for both semesters in laboratory. The H–H group scored highest (83.7), then the H–L group (77.5), then the L–H group (75.1); the L–L scored lowest (67.8). The value of ω 2 for the implementation of the treatment—the Science Writing Heuristic approach—during the second semester of the course was 0.180. An interpretation of this value is that 18.0% of the variance in the difference in mean scores between the H and L groups during the second semester of the course can be at-

1376


•

tributed to effective implementation of the SWH approach. By the end of the second semester, the distribution among the four groups was striking. The H–H group outperformed the L–L group. This is noteworthy in that it provides experimental evidence that the presence of at least one semester of an instructor who can effectively implement collaborative inquiry activities and the SWH approach in the laboratory component of the course results in statistically significant improvement in student achievement in the lecture portion of the course.

Comparative SWH Effects on Student Performance The third research question asked: do students who entered the course with a low level of chemistry knowledge and whose TAs implemented the SWH approach achieve a greater degree of success in the course compared to their peers who were not taught with the SWH approach? The same instructor taught the lecture portion of the course from 1997–1999 (prior to implementation of the SWH approach) and in 2002 (during implementation of the SWH approach). The same textbook was used (54) and the structure of the course was nearly identical. For this research question, academic performance of students taught using the SWH approach was compared to peers who had taken the same course in previous years when the SWH approach was not used. The CALD scores for students entering the course in the fall semesters 1997–1999 and fall semester 2002 were compared. There were no statistically significant differences in students’ chemistry content knowledge prior to the start of the course for the years 1997–1999 (CALD mean score average 25.1 out of 44 possible, SD 6.8) and 2002 (CALD mean score 25.4 out of 44 possible, SD 6.8). Table 6 shows results of a logistic regression analysis involving success in the course and students’ CALD scores when the Science Writing Heuristic approach was used (2002– 2003). Logistic regression analysis is applied when a continuous variable is used to predict a binary or categorical variable. The logistic regression function uses the method of maximum likelihood for a binomial distribution. The binary response variable (Y) can have two categories—success in the course or no success in the course—whereas the predictor variable (X) can be continuous, such as score on CALD (56). A logistic regression analysis for the years when the SWH approach was not used (1997–1999) is provided in the Supplemental Material.W The results of logistic regression analysis indicate that students involved with the SWH approach are more likely to be successful compared to students who were not involved with the SWH. Success of students involved with the SWH (Fall Semester 2002 and Spring Semester 2003 subjects) was compared to the success for students not involved with the SWH approach for a given CALD score. For example, with a CALD score of 15, the probabilities of success for students in the SWH classes were 0.340 and as high as 0.558. For a CALD score of 15, the probability of success for students not involved with the SWH for years 1997, 1998, and 1999 are 0.222, 0.180, and 0.263 respectively. While variations do exist, analysis shows students involved with the SWH approach demonstrate a greater degree of success with the course.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


Discussion and Conclusions For the past 20 years, science educators have tried to determine the conditions of the laboratory portion of the course that help students understand science concepts and principles. The results of this experiment provide evidence that, under appropriate conditions, chemistry laboratory experiences can positively contribute to students’ overall learning of chemistry. These conditions include providing: 1. A framework that helps instructors teach chemistry and helps students learn chemistry 2. A rationale for changing the role of the instructor from being a director to being a facilitator 3. Opportunities for active learning 4. Collaborative inquiry activities 5. Opportunities for meaningful dialog with peers and instructors 6. A science writing heuristic laboratory notebook format that includes a component of reflective writing

These conditions are consistent with the statement by William Leonard (71, p 166) that, Maximum benefit can be derived from laboratory and field experiences by having students work in groups and share their ideas, perceptions, and conceptions. Group design and interpretation of laboratory work are also effective strategies for exposing the changing misconceptions. In addition, students should prepare written reports describing the rationale for the experimental design, the data, and their interpretations.

The students who were subjects in this study started the course with similar chemistry content knowledge, experienced the same lectures with the same professor for the first and second semesters of the course; they had the same chemistry textbook, and had the same homework assignments. In this study, the beginning level chemistry content knowledge and structure of the lecture component of the course were factors that were equivalent for the four groups of students and thus did not serve as defining factors that influenced students’ academic performance (14–23, 72). The results of comparing the effectiveness of the teaching assistants’ degree of successful implementation of the Science Writing Heuristic approach in the laboratory portion of the course as it affects student academic performance in the lecture portion of the course are striking. At the end of the first semester, the differences in students’ total points earned are statistically significant between groups who had a teaching assistant rated “high” with respect to degree of implementation of the SWH approach compared to the groups who had a teaching assistant rated “low”. Results indicate that having a teaching assistant rated “high” for implementing the SWH approach is superior to having a teaching assistant rated “low”. Results of the analysis of data from the second semester reveal a similar pattern. The H–H group’s average total course points for the second semester was the highest of all four groups; that is, students benefit from having a teaching as-

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

sistant who is effective at implementing the Science Writing Heuristic approach. The H–L group’s composite score was lower compared to the H–H group. We attribute this outcome to students having a teaching assistant who failed to effectively implement the SWH approach in the second semester. With regard to preexisting chemistry knowledge, the effect of implementation of the Science Writing Heuristic approach is again striking. Scores on the CALD and total points earned in the course were analyzed using logistic regression to determine success in the course. Subjects in this study who entered the course with a low level of beginning chemistry knowledge and who were taught with the SWH approach demonstrated a higher level of success in the course compared to students in previous years, with similar beginning chemistry knowledge and who were not taught with the SWH approach. By the end of the second semester, these same students continued to experience success in the course. This shows that the SWH approach has a positive impact on student performance over an entire academic year, though it currently appears that the greater gain may be accomplished in the first semester. Also, this analysis shows that students who enter the course with a high level of beginning chemistry knowledge and who have a teaching assistant who effectively implements the SWH approach are not disadvantaged with respect to their academic performance in the lecture portion of the course. Learners benefit when instructors or teaching assistants effectively implement the science writing heuristic approach in the laboratory component of a course and engage their students in this process. The more proficiently an instructor engages students, the more effectively students respond to learning. Even if students do not have an instructor who effectively implements the SWH approach in laboratory during the first semester, they can still benefit by having an instructor who effectively implements the SWH approach in laboratory during the second semester of the course. This study supports McKeachie’s statement (73, p 168): [T]he effectiveness of the laboratory depends on the manner in which the work is taught. WSupplemental

Material

A data table for the years when the Science Writing Heuristic approach was not used (1997–1999) is available in this issue of JCE Online. Notes 1. To determine internal consistency for subject responses among the questions on the same instrument, one method to use is the Kuder–Richardson Formula 21 (K–R 21). This reliability coefficient estimates the correlation of the item responses with the total test score when the test items are scored dichotomously. A K–R 21 value is determined from a single administration of the test without having to split the instrument into equivalent halves. 2. American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Education Web site for Composite Norms, California Chemistry Diagnostic, 1997: http://www4.uwm.edu/chemexams/stats/norms/ cd97.cfm (accessed May 2007).


•


1377


Literature Cited 1. Hawkes, S. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1257. 2. Coppola, B. Laboratory Instruction: Ensuring an Active Learning Experience. In Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers, 11th ed., McKeachie, W. J., Ed.; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, 2002; Chapter 19. 3. Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language (Hanfmann, E.; Vakar, G., Trans.); MIT Press: Boston, MA, 1962. (Original work published in 1934.) 4. Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., Souberman, E., Eds.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1987. (Original work published in 1930.) 5. Fensham, P. J.; West, L. H. T. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1976, 13, 297–306. 6. Gallagher, J. J.; Tamir, P. Assess. Higher Educ. 1980, 5, 168– 190. 7. Tamir, P. Res. in Sci. and Tech. Educ. 1987, 5, 69–92. 8. Osman, M. E.; Hannafin, M. J. J. Educ. Res. 1994, 88, 5–13. 9. Webb, N. M. J. Res. in Math. Educ. 1991, 22, 366–389. 10. Lee, W. L.; Goh, N.; Chia, L.; Chin, C. Sci. Educ. 1996, 80, 691–710. 11. Gijlers, H.; de Jong, T. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2005, 42, 264– 282. 12. Ausubel, D. P.; Novak, J. D.; Hanessian, H. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, 2nd ed.; Holt, Rinehart, Winston: New York, 1978. 13. Roehrig, G. H.; Luft, J. A.; Kurdziel, J. P.; Turner, J. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 1206–1210. 14. Brooks, D. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1984, 61, 858–859. 15. Black, K. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 140–144. 16. Crosby, G. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 433–436. 17. Brooks, D. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 135–139. 18. Gillespie, R. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 192–194. 19. Spencer, J. N. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1993, 23, 159–161. 20. Heady, J. E. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1993, 23, 87–91. 21. Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 186–190. 22. Dinan, F. J.; Frydrychowski, V. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 429–431. 23. Hake, R. R.; Am. J. Phys. 1998, 66, 64–74. 24. Domin, D. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 543–547. 25. Herrington, D. G.; Nakhleh, M. B. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 1197–1205. 26. Russell, A. A.; Chapman, O. L.; Wegner, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 578–579. 27. Sherwood, D. W.; Kovac, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1399– 1403. 28. Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 899–903. 29. Pavelich, M. J.; Abraham, M. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56, 100–103. 30. Allen, J. B.; Barker, L. N.; Ramsden, J. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 533–534. 31. Hand, B.; Keys, C. W. Sci. Teach. 1999, 66, 27–29. 32. Keys, C. W.; Hand, B.; Prain, B.; Collins, S. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999, 36, 1065–1084. 33. Keys, C. W. Sci. Educ. 1999, 83, 115–130. 34. Rudd, J. A.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2001, 31, 230–234. 35. Hand, B.; Prain, V. Sci. Educ. 2002, 86, 737–755. 36. Wallace, C. S.; Hand, B. Using the Science Writing Heuristic

1378


•

37.

38. 39.

40. 41. 42.

43.

44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

51.

52. 53.

54.

55. 56. 57.

To Promote Learning from Laboratory. In Writing and Learning in the Science Classroom, Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., Prain, V., Eds.; Kluwer: Boston, MA, 2004; Chapter 6. Poock, J. R. Investigating the Effectiveness of Implementing the Science Writing Heuristic on Student Performance in General Chemistry. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2005. Burke, K. A.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1032–1038. Langer, J.; Applebee, A. In How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning (NCTE Research Report Number 22); National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL, 1987. Prain, V.; Hand, B. M. Teach. and Teach. Educ. 1996, 12, 609– 626. Prain, V.; Hand, B. M. Sci. Educ. 1999, 83, 151–162. Hohenshell, L. M. Enhancing Science Literacy through Implementation of Writing-To-Learn Strategies: Exploratory Studies in High School Biology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2004. Lawson, A., Abraham, M.; Renner, J. A Theory of Instruction: Using the Learning Cycle To Teach Science Concepts and Thinking Skills, Monograph 1, National Association for Research in Science Teaching; Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, 1989. Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 566–569. Farrell, J. J.; Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 570–574. Herron, J. D.; Nurrenbern, S. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1353–1361. Hand, B.; Wallace, C.; Yang, E. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2004, 26, 131–149. Keys, C. W. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37, 676–690. Rudd, J. A.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M.; Legg, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1680–1686. Tien, L. T. Fostering Expert Inquiry Skills and Beliefs about Chemistry through the MORE Laboratory Experience. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California– Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1998; UMI Microform # 9902256. Rickey, D. K. The Effects of Laboratory Curriculum and Instruction on Undergraduate Students’ Understanding of Chemistry. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California–Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1999; UMI Microform #9966547. Tien, L. T.; Rickey, D.; Stacy, A. M. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1999, 28, 318–324. Stacy, A. M. The Graduate Student in the Dual Role of Student and Teacher. In Graduate Education in the Chemical Sciences: Issues for the 21st Century: Report of a Workshop; National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, 2003; Chapter 6. Brown, T. L.; LeMay, H. E., Jr.; Bursten, B. E.; Chemistry: The Central Science, 9th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003. Russell, A. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 314–317. Legg, M. J.; Legg, J. C.; Greenbowe. T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1117–1121. Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. Introduction to the Science Writing Heuristic. In Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching, Pienta, N., Greenbowe, T. J., Cooper, M., Eds.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005; Chapter 12.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Research: Science and Education 58. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1971. 59. Leary, M. R. Introduction to Behavioral Research Methods, 3rd ed.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, 2001. 60. Burke, K. A.; Hand, B. M.; Poock, J.; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2005, 35, 36–41. 61. Herrington, D. G.; Nakhleh, M. B. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 1197–1205. 62. Roehrig, G. H.; Luft, J. A. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2004, 26, 3–24. 63. Kyle, W. C., Jr.; Penick, J. E.; Shymansky, J. A. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1979, 16, 544–547. 64. Brown, A. L.; Campione, J. C. Guided Discovery in a Community of Learners. In Classroom Lessons: Integration Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, McGilly, K., Ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994; pp 229–270. 65. Ronkowski, S. A. The Disciplinary/Departmental Context of TA Training. In Professional Development of Graduate Teaching Assistants, Marinchovich, M., Prostko, J., Stout, F., Eds.; Anker Publishing: Boston, MA, 1998; Chapter 3.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

66. Neter, J.; Kutner, M. H.; Nachtsheim, C. J.; Wasserman, W. Applied Linear Statistical Models; McGraw-Hill: Dubuque, IA, 1996. 67. Baumgart, N.; Low, B.; J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1980, 17, 269– 274. 68. Hays, W. F. Statistics, 5th ed.; Harcourt Brace: New York, 1994. 69. Howell, D. C. Statistical Methods for Psychology; 4th ed.; Duxbury: Belmont, CA, 1997. 70. Hinkle, D. E.; Wiersma, W.; Jurs, S. E. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed.; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, 1994; p 339. 71. Leonard, W. H. The Laboratory Classroom. In Handbook of College Teaching: Theory and Applications, Prichard, K. W., Sawyer, R. M., Eds.; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, 1994; Chapter 10. 72. Birk, J. P.; Foster, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 180–182. 73. McKeachie, W. J. Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Beginning College Teacher, 8th ed.; D.C. Heath: Lexington, MA, 1986; Chapter 16.


•


1379

Using the Science Writing Heuristic in the General ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents