Manipulation of M demand of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance: A neo‐piagetian study

Níaz, Mansoor

doi:10.1002/tea.3660250804

Cited by 60 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If the manipulation of the Mdemand of a problem changes its cognitive complexity, thus affecting student performance significantly, it is plausible to suggest that the manipulation of the other two cognitive variables (logical structure and perceptual field effect) could also lead to significant changes in student performance. Lawton (1993) and Niaz (1988a) have shown that the manipulation of the perceptual field effect (disembedding/cognitive style) of proportional reasoning tasks changes student performance sig-nificantly. Niaz and Robinson (1992) have studied the manipulation of the logical structure of chemistry problems, which represents, ".…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 97%

“…Empirical evidence (Niaz, 1988a) shows that even small changes in the amount of information processing required (M-demand) can lead to working memory overload due to: (a) mobilization of functional M-capacity instead of the maximum M-capacity; and (b) a situation in which the Mdemand of the task is greater than the M-capacity of the students. If the manipulation of the Mdemand of a problem changes its cognitive complexity, thus affecting student performance significantly, it is plausible to suggest that the manipulation of the other two cognitive variables (logical structure and perceptual field effect) could also lead to significant changes in student performance.…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent research in science education shows the importance of cognitive variables, such as developmental level, information processing (working memory/M-capacity), and disembedding ability (Adey & Shayer, 1994;Bitner, 1991;Haidar & Abraham, 1991;Johnstone, 1984;Johnstone & Al-Naeme, 1991;Johnstone & El-Banna, 1986, 1989Johnstone, Sleet, & Vianna, 1994;Johnstone & Su, 1994;Lawson, 1983;Mitchell & Lawson, 1988;Niaz, 1987Niaz, , 1988aNiaz, , 1988bNiaz, , 1989aNiaz, , 1989bNiaz, , 1991aNiaz, , 1996Niaz & Lawson, 1985;Niaz & Robinson, 1992Opdenacker et al, 1990;Piburn, 1990;Robinson & Niaz, 1991;Shayer & Adey, 1981;Staver & Jacks, 1988;Tsaparlis, 1994Tsaparlis, , 1995Tsaparlis, , 1997Vaquero, Rojas, & Niaz, 1996). Developmental level (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958), that is, general hypotheticodeductive reasoning ability, is an important predictor variable because most science concepts are based on hypotheticodeductive systems of scientific explanation (for review, see Lawson, 1985).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Molecular-equilibrium problems: Manipulation of logical structure and of M-demand, and their effect on student performance

1998

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Molecular‐equilibrium (chemical‐equilibrium) problems are among the most important, and at the same time most complex and difficult general chemistry problems. In this work, we examine the effect on student performance of the manipulation of the logical structure as well as of the M‐demand of these problems. In addition, we study the relationship between student performance on the problems and a number of cognitive variables, viz., developmental level, working memory capacity, functional M‐capacity and disembedding ability of students. In addition, we test the validity of the Johnstone–El‐Banna model. Nine problems of varying number of operative schemata, as well as of varying number of M‐demand, were used. The number of schemata varied from a minimum of two, to a maximum of four, while within each logical schema we had specific mental demand (M‐demand), varying from four to six. As basic molecular‐equilibrium schemata in these problems, we considered the following: (1) the process of establishment of chemical equilibrium; (2) the condition of chemical equilibrium; (3) the case of gaseous systems, with use of partial and total pressures as well as of Kp; and (4) the disturbance of equilibrium and the establishment of a new equilibrium. The correlation between student performance in the schemata and the steps of the problem solutions is low when the number of schemata is low, but high when this number is high. Of the cognitive factors studied, developmental level plays the most important role, especially as the logical structure of the problem increases. The other three cognitive variables also have an effect, with working memory capacity leading. The findings are mainly attributed to the fact that the prob‐lems were rather algorithmic exercises for the students, because of familiarity and training. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 82:437–454, 1998.

show abstract

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Molecular-equilibrium problems: Manipulation of logical structure and of M-demand, and their effect on student performance

1998

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The studies we will review included spatial abilities as one of the cognitive factors that may be relevant to the mastery of chemistry concepts. Other cognitive factors that have been considered by correlational research on chemistry learning included formal reasoning skills (Abraham & Westbrook, 1994;Chandran, Treagust, & Tobin, 1987;Haidar & Abraham, 1991;Keig & Rubba, 1993;Niaz, 1987Niaz, , 1988Niaz, , 1989Niaz & Robinson, 1992;Staver & Halsted, 1985), proportional reasoning skills (Anamuah-Mensah, Erickson, & Gaskell, 1987), field dependence/independence (Niaz & Lawson, 1985), and memory capacity (Niaz, 1988(Niaz, , 1989Niaz & Lawson, 1985;Niaz & Robinson, 1992). To narrow the scope of this article and focus on the visual aspect of chemistry learning, we review key findings of the correlational studies regarding chemistry learning and spatial abilities.…”

Section: To What Degree Do Individual Differences In Visuospatial Abimentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:In this article, we examine the role of visuospatial cognition in chemistry learning. We review three related kinds of literature: correlational studies of spatial abilities and chemistry learning, students' conceptual errors and difficulties understanding visual representations, and visualization tools that have been designed to help overcome these limitations. On the basis of our review, we conclude that visuospatial abilities and more general reasoning skills are relevant to chemistry learning, some of students' conceptual errors in chemistry are due to difficulties in operating on the internal and external visuospatial representations, and some visualization tools have been effective in helping students overcome the kinds of conceptual errors that may arise through difficulties in using visuospatial representations. To help students understand chemistry concepts and develop representational skills through supporting their visuospatial thinking, we suggest five principles for designing chemistry visualization tools: (1) providing multiple representations and descriptions, (2) making linked referential connections visible, (3) presenting the dynamic and interactive nature of chemistry, (4) promoting the transformation between 2D and 3D, and (5) reducing cognitive load by making information explicit and integrating information for students.

show abstract

“…(For a recent review, see Niaz, 1993.) Niaz (1988), for example, has shown how even a small and trivial increase in the M-demand of a chemistry problem affects student performance significantly.…”

Section: Developmental Perspectivementioning

confidence: 98%