A proposed teaching strategy based on multiple visual representations (MVR) and its interaction with the ability to think analytically to develop quantitative chemistry concepts and communication in the language of chemistry among secondary school students.

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Teaching Methods for Science- Faculty of Education - Damanhour University.

2 Lecturer of Curriculum and Science Education - Faculty of Education - Damanhour University.

Abstract

This research aimed to design a teaching strategy based on multiple visual representations and study its interaction with analytical thinking ability for developing quantitative chemistry concepts (qcc) and communication in the language of chemistry (clc). The sample included (100) students at the first secondary grade in the first semester (2022/2023). The analytical thinking test was applied and the students were divided into high and low ability students. The students of each department were randomly divided into two groups, one was taught by the strategy, and the other traditionally, then the data collection tools were applied. The results revealed that there were statistically significant difference at the p<0.01 in qcc and clc in the favor of students who studied with the strategy, also between high ability and low ability students in the favor of high ability students. There was a statistically significant correlation at p<0.01 between the development of qcc and clc.
 

Keywords

References

Ainsworth, S. (2014). The multiple representation principle in multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Alkhateeb, M. (2019).  Multiple Representations in 8th Grade Mathematics Textbook and the Extent to which Teachers Implement Them. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education.14 (1), 137-145.
 Allen, E. (2015). Picture this: the value of multiple visual representations for student learning of quantum concepts in general chemistry. Degree of Doctor of Education. Boston University School of Education.
Charuni, S. (2012). Development of constructivist web-based learning environment to enhance analytical thinking. European Journal of Social Sciences, 33(4), 216-274.
Chonkaew, P.; Sukhummek, B. & Faikhamtab, C. (2016). Development of analytical thinking ability and attitudes towards science learning of grade-11 students through science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM education) in the study of stoichiometry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 842—861.
Dangur, V., Avargil, S., Peskin, U. & Judy, Y. (2014). Learning quantum chemistry via a visual-conceptual approach: Students' bidirectional textual and visual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1-28. DOI: 10.1039/C4RP00025K
Deter, K. (2009). Chemistry you need to know. Research supporting the curriculum. Retrieved 20/8/2022 from http://kellymdeters. on-rev.com/Kendall-Hunt-Chemistry/Research.pdf
Ding, L. & Reay, N. (2014). Teaching undergraduate introductory physics with an innovative research-based clicker methodology. In: D. Sunal, C. Sunal, E. Wright, C. Mason & D. Zollman (Eds.), Research in science education: Research-based undergraduate science teaching, 305–334. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Ding, L. & Zhang, H. (2014). Science education study under the international view. Education in Chemistry, 36(7), 3–6.
Distrik, W., Jatmiko, B. & Yuberti, A. (2021).The effects of multiple representations-based learning in improving concept understanding and problem-solving ability. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1796, 1-21.
Eilam, B. (2013). Possible constraints of visualization in biology: challenges in learning with multiple representations. Netherlands: Springer.
Evagorou, M., Erduran, S. & Mäntylä, T. (2015).The role of visual representations in scientific practices: from conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(11), 1-13.
Evan, K. L., Karabinos, M., Leinhardt, G. & Yaron, G. (2004). Chemistry in the field and the classroom: A cognitive disconnect. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(4), 655-661.
 Fiorella, L. & Mayer, R. (2015). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 37, 98-120.
Gilbert, J. & Treagust, D. (2009a). Introduction: Macro, submicro andsymbolic representations and the relations between them key models in chemical education. In J.K. Gilbert & D.F. Treagust (Eds.), multiple representations in chemical education, 1-8. Netherlands: Springer.
Gilbert, J.K. & Treagust, D.F. (2009b). Towards a coherent model for macro, sub micro and symbolic representations in chemical education. In J.K. Gilbert & D.F. Treagust (Eds.), multiple representations in chemical education, 333-353. Netherlands: Springer.
Hansen, J. & Richland, L. (2020). Teaching and Learning Science through Multiple Representations: Intuitions and Executive Functions. Life Sciences Education, 19 (61), 1–15.
Holbrook, J. (2005). Making chemistry teaching relevant. Chemical Education International, 6(1), 1-12.
Ibrahim, D.A. (2011). Models of chemistry education and the matriculation chemistry course: A Review. Retrieved 20/8/2021, from https://www. researchgate.net/ publication/ 282853867.
Irwanto, H., Rohaeti, E., Widjajanti, E. & Suyanta, A. (2017). Students’ science process skill and analytical thinking ability in chemistry learning. 4th International Conference on Research, Implementation, and Education of Mathematics and Science, 1-5. Retrieved August 25, 2022 from: https://aip.scitation.org/ doi/abs/10.1063/1.4995100. 
Jacob, C. (2001). Analysis and synthesis, Interdependent operations in chemical language and practice. HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 7 (1), 31-50. Retrieved August/ 3/ 2022, from http:// www.hyle.org.
Jensen, W.B. (2005). The origins of the symbols A and Z for atomic weight and number. Journal of Chemical Education, 82 (12), 1760-1778.
Kamisah, O. & Nur, S. (2013) Conceptual understanding in secondary school chemistry: A discussion of the difficulties Experienced by students. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 10 (5), 433-441.
Kelly, K. (2010). The language of chemistry:  A new challenge for chemistry education. Chemistry International, September-October, 1-7.
Lopez, J. &Tancinco, N. (2016). Students’ analytical thinking skills and teachers: Instructional practices in selected State Universities and colleges in Region VIII. International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology, 5(6), 681-697.
Mahaffy, P. (2004). The future shape of chemistry education. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 229-245.
Mahaffy, P. (2006). Moving chemistry education into 3D: A Tetrahedral metaphor for understanding chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 49-54.
Mills, E. (2002). A study of Evaluation of Student's Knowledge about Chemical Reaction. Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 44-48.
Montaku, S. (2011). Results of analytical thinking skills training through students in system analysis and design course.  Proceeding of the IETEC, 11 Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1-14.
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with spss. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996).The national science education standards. Washington: D.C., National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Patcharee, C., Boonnak, S. & Chatree, F. (2016). Development of analytical thinking ability and attitudes towards science learning of grade-11students through science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM education) in the study of stoichiometry, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 842—861.
Patel, Y. & Dexter, S. (2014). Using multiple representations to build conceptual understanding in science and mathematics. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Pentcho, V. (2004).Introducing Logic in Chemical Thermodynamics Courses. Journal of Science Education, 5(2), 100-103.
Prastiwi, M. & Laksono, E. (2018). The ability of analytical thinking and chemistry literacy in high school students learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097, The 5th International Conference on Research, Implementation, & Education of Mathematics and Sciences, 7–8 May, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Puchit, p., Sumalee, T. & Ratana, M. (2019). Using Information Retrieval Activities to Foster Analytical Thinking Skills in Higher Education in Thailand: A Case Study of Local Wisdom Education. Asian, Journal of Education and Training, 5(1), 80-85.
Rau, M. (2017).  Conditions for the Effectiveness of Multiple Visual Representations in Enhancing STEM Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 717–761.
Rau, M. (2018). Making connections among multiple visual representations: how do sense-making skills and perceptual fluency relate to learning of chemistry knowledge? Instructional Science, 46, 209–243
Sartika, S. (2017). Teaching models to increase students' analytical thinking skills in science. Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 125 (1) st International Conference on Intellectuals' Global Responsibility, 216-219.
Sliwka, H. R. (2003). Reform of chemical language as a model for spelling reform. Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society, 32, 24-28. Retrieved August/6/2022, from http://www. spellingsociety.org/ journals/j32/ chemical.hp.
Specter, P. (2003). Students Factor as Correlates of Achievement in Chemistry Education. Journal of Science Education, 4(2), 80-82.
Sunyono, M., Yuanita, L. & Ibrahim, M. (2015). Supporting Students in Learning with Multiple Representation to Improve Student Mental Models on Atomic Structure Concepts. Science Education International, 26(2), 104-125.
Taber, K. S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barries to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89 (1), 94-116.
Taber, K.S. (2009). Learning at the symbolic level. In J.K. Gilbert & D.F. Treagust (Eds.), multiple representations in chemical education, 75-136. Netherlands: Springer.
Taleb, H. & Chadwick, C. (2016). Enhancing student critical and analytical thinking skills at a higher education level ın developing countries: Case study of the British University ın Dubai. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies, 6 (1), 67-77.
Tobin, K. (2006). Why do science teachers teach the way they do and how can they improve practice. In: P.J. Aubusson, A.G. Harrison & S.M. Ritchie. Metaphor and anology in science education, 155-164. Netherlands: Springer.
Treagust, D. & Tsui, C. (2013). Multiple representations in biological education. Netherlands: Springer.
Walker, S. (2003). The chemistry problem.  Department of Chemistry, University of Liverpool. Retrieved on 25/7/2022, 2004, Available http://dbwed.liv.ac.uk/1tsppsc/devprojs/ gcsephys.htm.
Woldeamanuel, M., Atagana, H. & Temechegn Engida, T. (2014). What makes chemistry difficult? AJCE, 4(2), Special Issue (Part I), 31-43.
 
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics