Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Cognitive Framework for the Analysis of Online Chemistry Courses

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many students now are receiving instruction in online environments created by universities, museums, corporations, and even students. What features of a given online course contribute to its effectiveness? This paper addresses that query by proposing and applying an analytic framework to five online introductory chemistry courses. Introductory chemistry was chosen because, as the central science, chemistry is a core component of scientific literacy as well as a long-established prerequisite for science, engineering, and medical fields. An online instructional delivery system has the potential to overcome the limitations of the traditionally large and passive lecture format characteristic of an introductory chemistry course by providing students with opportunities for active engagement and support in the learning process via self-pacing, dynamic expositions, interactive problem solving, and open ended or scaffolded explorations of new information. The proposed framework for addressing the effectiveness of online chemistry courses is informed by both cognitive and chemistry education research on examples, tasks, and explorations and includes a catalog of possible online resources. As a demonstration of the framework, an analysis was conducted on each course’s instruction in stoichiometry, a tool that is both challenging to students and fundamental to the solution-chemistry topics addressed during subsequent coursework. The application of this framework revealed characteristics of the courses that could affect their instructional effectiveness as well as students’ impressions of what it means to “do chemistry.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. When simulations are exploratory in nature learners are able to design their own tasks unbounded by performance standards. Specific consideration of exploratory opportunities is addressed in the Results and Discussion section (Exploratory Environments)

  2. Additional discussion of tutorials is included in the Online Features section

References

  • Amato I (1991) Chemistry with a thousand faces. Science 253:1212–1213

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J (1993) Rules of the mind. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J, Boyle C, Reiser B (1985) Intelligent tutoring systems. Science 228:456–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns R, Kulik C-L, Kulik J, Morgan M-T (1991) The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev Educ Res 61:213–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford J, Brown A, Cocking R (eds) (1999) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Breslow R (2001) Not so general chemistry. Chem Eng News 79:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi M (2005) Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust. J Learn Sci 14:161–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi M, Feltovich P, Glaser R (1981) Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts. Cognit Sci 5:121–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi M, Roscoe R (2002) The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In: Limon M, Mason L (eds) Reframing the process of conceptual change: integrating theory and practice. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 3–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn C, Malhotra B (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ 86:175–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark R, Mayer R (2003) e-Learning and the science of instruction. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb G (1987) Introductory textbooks: a framework for evaluation. J Am Stat Assoc 82:321–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong T, Van Joolingen W (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res 68:179–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiSessa A (2000) Changing minds: computers, learning, and literacy. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans K, Leinhardt G, Karabinos M, Yaron D (2006) Chemistry in the field and chemistry in the classroom: a cognitive disconnect? J Chem Educ 83:665–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel D, Bunce D (1994) Research on problem solving: chemistry. In: Gabel D (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Simon and Schuster/ Macmillan, New York, pp 301–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick M, Holyoak K (1980) Analogical problem solving. Cognit Psychol 12:306–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick M, Holyoak K (1983) Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognit Psychol 15:1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert T, Kirss R, Davies G (2004) Chemistry: the science in context. WW Norton & Company, New York

  • Johnstone A (2000) Teaching of chemistry-logical or psychological? Chem Educ Res Pract Eur 1:9–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin J, Simon H (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognit Sci 11:65–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larreamendy-Joerns J, Leinhardt G (2006) Going the distance with online education. Rev Educ Res 76:1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larreamendy-Joerns J, Leinhardt G, Corredor J (2005) Six online statistics courses: examination and review. Am Stat 59:240–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Lee Y (1991) Effects of learner-control versus program control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry problems: for acquisition or review? J Educ Psychol 83:491–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt G (2001) Instructional explanations: a commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In: Richardson V (ed) Handbook of research on teaching, 4th edn. American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, pp 33–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason B, Bruning R (2001) Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: what the research tells us, Retrieved May 1, 2006, from University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Center for Instructional Innovation Web site: http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html

  • Mioduser D, Nachmias R, Lahav O, Oren A (2000) Web-based learning environments: current pedagogical and technological state. J Res Comput Educ 33:55–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Mory E (1996) Feedback research. In: Jonassen D (ed) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Simon and Schuster/Macmillan, New York, pp 919–956

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachmias R, Tuvi I (2001) Taxonomy of scientifically oriented educational websites. J Sci Educ Technol 10:93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narciss S (2004) The impact of informative tutoring feedback and self-efficacy on motivation and achievement in concept learning. Exp Psychol 51:214–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Osin L, Lesgold A (1996) A proposal for the reengineering of the educational system. Rev Educ Res 66:621–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penner D (2000) Explaining processes: investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena. J Res Sci Teach 37:784–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins D, Salomon G (1989) Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educ Res 18:16–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Quilici J, Mayer R (1996) Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. J Educ Psychol 88:144–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland E (1991) Example based reasoning. In: Voss J, Perkins D, Segal J (eds) Informal reasoning and education. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 187–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum D, Carlson R, Gilmore R (2001) Acquisition of intellectual and perceptual motor skills. Ann Rev Psychol 52:453–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scerri E (2000) Philosophy of chemistry—a new interdisciplinary field. J Chem Educ 77:522–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab J (1962) The teaching of science as inquiry. In: Schwab J, Brandwein P (eds) The teaching of science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaak J, De Jong T (2007) Order or no order: system versus learner control in sequencing simulation-based discovery learning. In: Ritter F, Nerb J, Lehtinen E, O’Shea T (eds) In order to learn: how the sequence of topics influences learning. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 181–194

  • Tuvi I, Nachmias R (2001) Current state of web sites in science education—focus on atomic structure. J Sci Educ Technol 10:293–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuvi-Arad I, Nachmias R (2003) A study of web-based learning environments focusing on atomic structure. J Comput Math Sci Teach 22:225–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merrienboer J, Kirschner P, Kester L (2003) Taking the load off a learner’s mind: instructional design for complex learning. Educ Psychol 38:5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaron D, Leinhardt G, Karabinos M (2004) Shape, transformation, and energy: critical resources for thinking in chemistry. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to acknowledge Joyce Fienberg for helping to review earlier versions of this manuscript. The work was funded in part by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation through the Open Learning Initiative project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Education Department, 300B Hirt Academic Center, Mercyhurst College, 501 East 38th Street, Erie, PA, 16546, USA

    Karen L. Evans

  2. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Gaea Leinhardt

Authors
  1. Karen L. Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gaea Leinhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen L. Evans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Evans, K.L., Leinhardt, G. A Cognitive Framework for the Analysis of Online Chemistry Courses. J Sci Educ Technol 17, 100–120 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9087-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9087-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation