Use of a card sort task to assess students' ability to coordinate three levels of representation in chemistry

Abstract

There is much agreement among chemical education researchers that expertise in chemistry depends in part on the ability to coordinate understanding of phenomena on three levels: macroscopic (observable), sub-microscopic (atoms, molecules, and ions) and symbolic (chemical equations, graphs, etc.). We hypothesize this “level-coordination ability” is related to the formation and use of principle-based, vs. context-bound, internal representations or schemas. Here we describe the development, initial validation, and use of a card sort task to measure the level-coordinating ability of individuals with varying degrees of preparation in chemistry. We have also developed a novel method for generating two-dimensional sorting coordinates which were used to arrange participants along a hypothetical progression of level-coordination ability. Our findings suggest the card sort task shows promise as a tool to assess level-coordination ability. With the exception of graduate students, participant groups on average progressed from sorting by level of representation toward sorting by underlying principle. Graduate students unexpectedly sorted primarily by level of representation. We use these data to form initial hypotheses about a typical process for the development of level-coordination ability and schema formation. In doing so, we demonstrate the usefulness of our task paired with sorting coordinate analysis as a tool to explore the space between novice and expert behavior. Finally, we suggest potential uses for the task as a formative assessment tool at the classroom and program levels.

Using the Biology Card Sorting Task to Measure Changes in Conceptual Expertise during Postsecondary Biology Education

“…Interestingly, 100% of BF reported using deep-feature rationales to organize their cards, while NBM reported using a variety of different rationales to sort their cards, including but not limited to, surface-feature rationales. Intriguingly, similar findings—that while experts tend to converge on one of a small number of methods for organizing their knowledge, novices tend to be much more varied in how they organize their knowledge—have been reported for a genetics card-sorting task ( Smith, 1990 ), recently developed chemistry card-sorting tasks ( Irby et al. , 2016 ; Krieter et al.…”

Game‐based activities targeting visual literacy skills to increase understanding of biomolecule structure and function concepts in undergraduate biochemistry

“…Regardless of the subject or type of study, many authors note that novice students sort primarily on superficial contextual features while experts group based on underlying conceptual features 12,14–19,27,28 . Similarly, in studies investigating students' understanding and organization of chemical representations, students focused on surface features and constructed categories based primarily on a single aspect defined by Johnstone's triangle (i.e., macroscopic, microscopic, or symbolic) 13,29 . The novice students were not yet able to integrate representations with knowledge like subject‐matter experts 13,22,25 .…”

An online categorization task to investigate changes in students' interpretations of organic chemistry reactions

“…Categorization tasks have been used to probe the difference between experts and novices in many different disciplines of education research, including physics (Chi et al, ; Mason & Singh, , ; Singh, ), biology (Bissonnette et al, ; Hoskinson, Maher, Bekkering, & Ebert‐May, ; J. I. Smith et al, ; M. U. Smith, ), computer sciences (McCauley et al, ), and chemistry (Domin, Al‐Masum, & Mensah, ; Graulich & Bhattacharyya, ; Irby et al, ; Kozma & Russell, ; Krieter, Julius, Tanner, Bush, & Scott, ; Stains & Talanquer, ). These studies may employ one‐on‐one interviews (Chi et al, ; Galloway, Leung, et al, , ; Snyder, ), but can also be administered in larger class settings (Krieter et al, ; Lin & Singh, ; Mason & Singh, , ; J. I. Smith et al, ).…”