Students’ Independent Use of Screencasts and Simulations to Construct Understanding of Solubility Concepts
- 764 Downloads
As students increasingly use online chemistry animations and simulations, it is becoming more important to understand how students independently engage with such materials and to develop a set of best practices for students’ use of these resources outside of the classroom. Most of the literature examining students’ use of animations and simulations has focused on classroom use with some studies suggesting that better outcomes are obtained when students use simulations with minimal guidance while others indicate the need for appropriate scaffolding. This study examined differences with respect to (1) student understanding of the concept of dissolution of ionic and covalent compounds in water and (2) student use of electronic resources when students were asked to complete an assignment either by manipulating a simulation on their own or by watching a screencast in which an expert manipulated the same simulation. Comparison of students’ pre- and posttest scores, answers to assignment questions, near-transfer follow-up questions, and eye-tracking analysis suggested that students who viewed the screencast gained a better understanding of the dissolving process, including interactions with water at the particulate level, particularly for covalent compounds. Additionally, the eye tracking indicated that there were significant differences in the ways that the different treatment groups (screencast or simulation) used the electronic resources.
KeywordsSimulation Screencast General chemistry Solubility Eye tracking
The authors would like to recognize contributions to this work by Dena Warren, Karli Gormley, Marissa Biesbrock, Kristina Pacelli, Stephanie Lerchenfelt, and Treyce Sanderson. Ryan Sweeder would also like to thank the Lyman Briggs Trajectory Fund for financial support for this work.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study has been approved as exempt by the GVSU and MSU Institutional Review Boards: Exempt Reference no. GVSU: 15-079-H and 16-012-H; MSU: x15-775e.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Adams WK (2010) Student engagement and learning with PhET interactive simulations. Il Nuovo Cimento C 33(3):21–32Google Scholar
- Azevedo R (2005) Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol 40(4):199–209Google Scholar
- Barke H-D, Hazari A, Yitbarek S (2009) Misconceptions in chemistry: addressing perceptions in chemical education. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Canham M, Hegarty M (2010) Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learn Instr 20(2):155–166Google Scholar
- Chiu JL, Linn MC (2012) The role of self-monitoring in learning chemistry with dynamic visualizations. In: Zohar A, Dori YJ (eds) Metacognition in science education, vol 40, pp. 133–163Google Scholar
- Chiu JL, Linn MC (2014) Supporting knowledge integration in chemistry with a visualization-enhanced inquiry unit. J Sci Educ Technol 23(1):37–58Google Scholar
- Grant MR, Thornton HR (2007) Best practices in undergraduate adult-centered online learning: mechanisms for course design and delivery. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach 3(4):346–356Google Scholar
- Gustafson B, Mahaffy P, Martin B (2015) Guiding age 10-11 students to notice the salient features of physical change models in chemistry digital learning objects. J Comp Math Sci Teach 34(1):5–39Google Scholar
- Havanki KL, VandenPlas JR (2014) Eye tracking methodology for chemistry education research. In: Bunce DM, Cole RS (eds) Tools of chemistry education research. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 191–218Google Scholar
- Holmqvist K, Nyström M, Andersson R, Dewhurst R, Jarodzka H, Van de Weijer J (2011) Eye tracking: a comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- IBM Corp (2013) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (version 23.0). IBM Corp, Armonk, NYGoogle Scholar
- Johnstone AH (1982) Macro- and micro-chemistry. Sch Sci Rev 64:377–379Google Scholar
- Keengwe J, Kidd TT (2010) Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6(2):533–541Google Scholar
- Lancaster K, Moore EB, Parson R, Perkins KK (2013) Insights from using PhET’ s design principles for interactive chemistry simulations. In: Suits J, Sanger MJ (eds) Pedagogic roles of animations and simulations in chemistry courses. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., pp 97–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
- PhET Interactive Simulations. (2016). Sugar and salt solutions PhET simulation. Retrieved from http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/sugar-and-salt-solutions
- PHET Screencast Solubility of Ionic Compounds. (2015) Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLi6HEQQmlc&amp;list=UUOZh27juAL15wrp935jUMkw
- Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T., J. (2000). Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. Int J Sci Educ, 22(5), 521–537.Google Scholar
- Schwartz RA, Milne C, Homer BD, Plass JL (2013) Designing and implementing effective animations and simulations for chemistry learning. In: Suits J, Sanger MJ (eds) Pedagogic roles of animations and simulations in chemistry courses. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 43–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
- Tang H, Day E, Kendhammer L, Moore JN, Brown SA, Pienta NJ (2016) Eye movement patterns in solving science ordering problems. J Eye Mov Res 9(3):1–13Google Scholar
- Tobii Technology. (2016). Tobii Studio user’s manual (Vol. 3.4.5): Tobii AB.Google Scholar
- von Glasersfeld E (1993) Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In: Tobin K (ed) The practice of constructivism in science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 22–38Google Scholar
- Wiggins GP, McTighe J (2005) Understanding by design, Expanded 2nd edn. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
- Williamson VM (2014) Teaching chemistry conceptually. In: Devetak I, Glažar SA (eds) Learning with understanding in the chemistry classroom, vol 1. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 103–208Google Scholar