Options
Students' ideas in designing experimental set-ups and their reflective learning-thinking approaches in school chemistry
Loading...
Type
Thesis
Abstract
Current school-based practical assessment in Singapore involves assessment of planning skills in science investigations, including student-designed experimental set-ups. Presently there is scarce research and practice information on how students design or improve on their experimental set-ups. The ability to design is a critical skill in science and technology, especially in research and development. It would be useful to find out if there are prevailing students‟ preferred learning-thinking approaches among those who are good at designing set-ups (the „good designers‟). Such approaches include being observant, able to generate and to make sense of ideas. These are commonly cited as supportive of a reflective habit of learning critical to the success of many scientists and innovators. This research aims to provide evidences relating to reflective learningthinking approaches that may help students design better experimental set-ups.
The research strategy uses both qualitative and quantitative methods in crafting survey instruments and analyzing the results. These include inter-scorer validation of student-designed experimental set-ups evaluated by rubrics, characterization and identification of students‟ learning-thinking approaches among good designers‟ and students‟ post-survey reflective reports. The instruments used are the Chemistry Learning and Thinking Instrument (CLTI) and the Experimental Design Tasks (EDT) List. The "Learning" and "Thinking" sections of the CLTI are specifically crafted to reflect students‟ learning-thinking experiences in school chemistry and are validated against the Learning Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987) and the External-Internal Thinking Inventory (Sternberg, 1997) respectively. The EDT List consists of four design tasks similar to those commonly taught or experienced in school experimental chemistry.
419 secondary school chemistry students participated in the Pilot and Main Studies. Their reflective learning-thinking approaches were characterised and their ideas in designing set-ups were evaluated through rubrics by different scorers. Students were characterized according to those who: (1) are less inclined-to-reflect when engaging in chemistry learning tasks (L) versus those with a greater inclination to do so (H); (2) prefer achievement-related learning (A) versus deep-, self-motivated learning approaches (D); and, (3) prefer internal thinking (I) versus external thinking (E) approaches. These learning-thinking approaches translate into eight possible combinations, namely HDE, HAE, HDI, HAI, LDE, LAE, LDI and LAI. Students‟ performances on the EDT List were then analyzed alongside the 8 possible combinations of approaches.
Results show that the „H‟ characteristic is common among the good designers, with the HDE combination being the most prominent. However, there is no indication that the „D‟ and „E‟ approaches are unique to this group as those who could not design an appropriate set-up tend to have the „LDE‟ combination. The results have provided evidences that being more reflective when engaged in a learning task (that is, those with an „H‟ score in the CLTI) appears to be the prominent learning-thinking characteristic among good designers. Post-survey reflective reports by students also indicate that opportunities to reflect may improve students‟ chances of designing a good set-up. Hence, it is recommended that reflective approaches in science experimental lessons could be encouraged to better prepare students for design work, such as those involving inquiry and investigations.
The research strategy uses both qualitative and quantitative methods in crafting survey instruments and analyzing the results. These include inter-scorer validation of student-designed experimental set-ups evaluated by rubrics, characterization and identification of students‟ learning-thinking approaches among good designers‟ and students‟ post-survey reflective reports. The instruments used are the Chemistry Learning and Thinking Instrument (CLTI) and the Experimental Design Tasks (EDT) List. The "Learning" and "Thinking" sections of the CLTI are specifically crafted to reflect students‟ learning-thinking experiences in school chemistry and are validated against the Learning Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987) and the External-Internal Thinking Inventory (Sternberg, 1997) respectively. The EDT List consists of four design tasks similar to those commonly taught or experienced in school experimental chemistry.
419 secondary school chemistry students participated in the Pilot and Main Studies. Their reflective learning-thinking approaches were characterised and their ideas in designing set-ups were evaluated through rubrics by different scorers. Students were characterized according to those who: (1) are less inclined-to-reflect when engaging in chemistry learning tasks (L) versus those with a greater inclination to do so (H); (2) prefer achievement-related learning (A) versus deep-, self-motivated learning approaches (D); and, (3) prefer internal thinking (I) versus external thinking (E) approaches. These learning-thinking approaches translate into eight possible combinations, namely HDE, HAE, HDI, HAI, LDE, LAE, LDI and LAI. Students‟ performances on the EDT List were then analyzed alongside the 8 possible combinations of approaches.
Results show that the „H‟ characteristic is common among the good designers, with the HDE combination being the most prominent. However, there is no indication that the „D‟ and „E‟ approaches are unique to this group as those who could not design an appropriate set-up tend to have the „LDE‟ combination. The results have provided evidences that being more reflective when engaged in a learning task (that is, those with an „H‟ score in the CLTI) appears to be the prominent learning-thinking characteristic among good designers. Post-survey reflective reports by students also indicate that opportunities to reflect may improve students‟ chances of designing a good set-up. Hence, it is recommended that reflective approaches in science experimental lessons could be encouraged to better prepare students for design work, such as those involving inquiry and investigations.
Date Issued
2008
Call Number
QD49.S55 Tan
Date Submitted
2008