Concept Learning versus Problem Solving: Evaluating a Threat to the Validity of a Particulate Gas Law Question

Abstract

Three different samples of students were asked to answer five multiple-choice questions concerning the properties of a sample of helium gas (particle speed, state of matter, sample volume, sample pressure, and particle distribution), including a particulate question first used by Nurrenbern and Pickering (particle distribution). In the first experiment, half of the students were given the boiling point of helium under these conditions while the other half were not; in the second experiment, half of the students were explicitly told that the cooled gas sample would not liquefy or solidify under these conditions while the other half were not; in the third experiment, half of the students received instruction that asked them to focus on whether the container for the gas sample was rigid or nonrigid while the other half received traditional instruction that did not focus on the rigidity of gas container. The responses from students in these three experiments were compared. The first experiment was unable to show any significant difference in students’ responses to the five questions and found that the proportion of correct answers for the two groups was equivalent for the particle speed, sample volume, and sample pressure questions. The second experiment found that students given the explicit information were more likely to correctly predict the state of matter for the sample, but the responses from the two groups of students were equivalent for the other four questions. The third experiment suggested that students receiving instruction regarding the rigidity of the gas container were more likely to choose the correct answer for the questions related to the sample volume, sample pressure, and particle distribution. The results of the first two experiments suggest that choosing an incorrect state of matter for the gas sample does not appear to be a major threat to the validity of Nurrenbern and Pickering’s particulate question. The last two experiments suggest that providing students with instructional or assessment cues with the goal of helping students activate schema related to the behavior and properties of gases appeared to improve their answers to some of the five multiple-choice questions asked in these studies.

Students' mind wandering in macroscopic and submicroscopic textual narrations and its relationship with their reading comprehension

“…Also, the presence of difficult, new and/ or low frequency words within the text is associated with longer gaze durations and leads to longer total inspection times (Sereno and Rayner, 2003;Smallwood et al, 2008;Foulsham et al, 2013), contributing to a slower reading pace (Foulsham et al, 2013) and worse reading comprehension (Smallwood et al, 2008). They are more abstract (Gericke and Hagberg, 2007;Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013bAl-Balushi and Coll, 2013;Taber, 2013), less frequently encountered by learners than macroscopic description of natural phenomena and they represent more difficult concepts than macroscopic words (Sanger et al, 2013;Kelly, 2014;Milenković et al, 2014;Prilliman, 2014;Ryan and Herrington, 2014;Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014;Warfa et al, 2014). They are more abstract (Gericke and Hagberg, 2007;Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013bAl-Balushi and Coll, 2013;Taber, 2013), less frequently encountered by learners than macroscopic description of natural phenomena and they represent more difficult concepts than macroscopic words (Sanger et al, 2013;Kelly, 2014;Milenković et al, 2014;Prilliman, 2014;Ryan and Herrington, 2014;Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014;Warfa et al, 2014).…”

“…The three levels included in this triplet nature of chemistry are considered as levels of thought (Johnstone, 2000). Much of the difficulty students have in learning chemistry and the related misconceptions have been considered to be a result of their inability to comprehend the details of the phenomenon undertaken at the three levels and their failure to move spontaneously among them (Sanger et al, 2013;Kelly, 2014;Milenković et al, 2014;Prilliman, 2014;Ryan and Herrington, 2014;Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014;Warfa et al, 2014). Much of the difficulty students have in learning chemistry and the related misconceptions have been considered to be a result of their inability to comprehend the details of the phenomenon undertaken at the three levels and their failure to move spontaneously among them (Sanger et al, 2013;Kelly, 2014;Milenković et al, 2014;Prilliman, 2014;Ryan and Herrington, 2014;Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014;Warfa et al, 2014).…”

Strengthening Strategic Applications of Problem-Solving Skills for Taiwan Students’ Chemistry Understanding

“…At the first sight of their encounters with important chemistry terminologies, college students would often feel puzzled for individual difficulties in solving abstract or complicated problems, such as gas chemistry (Sanger et al, 2013), electrochemistry (Cheung, 2011), stoichiometry (Davidowitz et al;2010Sanger, 2005, chemical equilibrium (Cheung et al, 2009) and stereochemistry (Abraham et al, 2010). Scholars attributed students' pri-Scholars attributed students' pri-students' pri-students' pri-tudents' primary dilemma of chemistry learning to their lack of authentic access for integrating cognitive skills with their fundamental understanding of chemistry concepts (Sanger, 2005;St Clair-Thompson et al, 2012).…”

“…In the educational perspective of strategic PSS applications, Salt and Tzougraki (2011) demonstrated that though students could have solved algorithmic-type chemistry problems, they still had difficulty answering conceptual-type problems on the same topics, especially if these conceptual problems were given in detailed description of the particulate nature level (also Özmen, 2013). To look for more cognitional features of conceptual changes, researchers emphasized that students had to integrate clear conceptions with strategic PSS applications for individual learning (Pickering, 1990;Cracolice et al, 2008;Sanger et al, 2013), to avoid students' inability to answer algorithmic versus particulate conceptual questions during the initiated process of chemistry reasoning skills.…”

“…Many scholars proposed that students' alternative and complicated conceptions included the properties of gas, gas particulate nature of matter and kinetic molecular theory of gases (Kautz et al, 2005;Lin et al, 2000;Nurrenbern & Pickering, 1987;Pickering, 1990;Sanger et al, 2013). To elaborate clear cognitive learning of gas chemistry, this study summarized several scholars' academic resources.…”