Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ Drawings, Conceptual Models, and Chemistry Understanding in the Air-Quality Learning Unit

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing, constructing, and explaining a model of a given abstract phenomenon is a challenging task. In this study, students were engaged in the Project-Based Inquiry Science (PBIS)-Air Quality learning unit, as part of their chemistry curriculum. The study aim is to determine how well students understand chemistry conceptually after completing the PBIS Air-Quality learning unit. Using their pre- and post-closed-ended questions as well as their post-drawing assignment, we developed a rubric to examine students’ conceptual understanding as manifested in their drawings and examined if there is a correlation between their drawings and their pre- and post-questionnaire results. Research participants were 436 eighth-grade middle school students. The results suggest that state of matter and distance between molecules were conceptually understood better after learning the PBIS unit. We analyzed students’ explanations and drawings based on the rubric and found a moderate positive correlation between students’ post-scores in the questionnaires and their answer complexity level in the post drawing assignment. The research shows that students’ conceptual understanding should be assessed through different assessment methods to gain a better evaluation of students’ conceptual understanding. Even students who succeeded in the close-ended questions in the post-questionnaire had difficulties expressing their conceptual understanding through the drawing assignment. The rubric can help teachers and educators assess their students’ conceptual models and can be used as an assessment tool to evaluate the progression of their chemistry understanding. Teaching with rubrics will improve the quality of assessment and facilitate teachers’ development.

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
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The original data can not be shared due to ethical considerations.

References

  • Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akaygun, S. (2016). Is the oxygen atom static or dynamic? The effect of generating animations on students’ mental models of atomic structure. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 788–807. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00067c

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akiha, K., Brigham, E., Couch, B. A., Lewin, J., Stains, M., Stetzer, M. R., Vinson, E. L., & Smith, M. K. (2018). What types of instructional shifts do students experience? Investigating active learning in science, technology, engineering, and math classes across key transition points from middle school to the university level. Frontiers in Education, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00068

  • Avargil, S., & Piorko, R. (2022). High school students’ understanding of molecular representations in a context-based chemistry learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 44(11), 1738–1766. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2095679

  • Avargil, S., Bruce, M., Francois A., & Bruce, A. (2015). Students’ understanding of analogy in a CORE (Chemical Observations, Representations, Experimentation) learning cycle, general chemistry experiment. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(10), 1626–1638. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00230

  • Barak, M., Yachin, T., & Erduran, S. (2022). Tracing preservice teachers’ understanding of nature of science through their drawings and writing. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10069-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M. (2017). Reflective drawings as means for depicting icts roles in science and engineering learning in the 21st century. In Drawing for Science Education: An International Perspective (pp. 31–40). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-875-4_3

  • Baumfalk, B., Bhattacharya, D., Vo, T., Forbes, C., Zangori, L., & Schwarz, C. (2019). Impact of model-based science curriculum and instruction on elementary students’ explanations for the hydrosphere. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(5), 570–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, M .R. M., Bruce, A. E., Avargil, S., Amar, F. G., Wemyss, T., & Flood, V. J. (2016). Polymers and cross-linking: a CORE experiment to help students think on the atomic scale. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(9), 1599–1605. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00010 

  • Chang, H. Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. Y., Lin, T. J., Lee, M. H., Lee, S. W. Y., Lin, T. C., Tan, A. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2020). A systematic review of trends and findings in research employing drawing assessment in science education. In Studies in Science Education, 56(1), 77–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1735822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M. M. W., & Gilbert, J. K. (2017). Modelling students’ visualisation of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1173–1193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1319989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M.-H., & Lin, J.-W. (2019). Modeling competence in science education. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0012-y

  • Clement, J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Model based learning and instruction in science. In Model based learning and instruction in science. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6494-4

  • Crawford, B., & Cullin, M. (2005). Dynamic assessments of preservice teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling. Research and the Quality of Science Education, 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_25

  • Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). An expanded typology for classifying mixed methods research into designs. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Advanced mixed methods research designs (pp. 159–196). SAGE Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA.

  • Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Dangur, V., Avargil, S., Peskin, U., & Dori, Y. J. (2014). Learning quantum chemistry via a visual-conceptual approach: Students’ bidirectional textual and visual understanding. In Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp00025k

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deboer, G. E., Herrmann-abell, C. F., Wertheim, J., & Roseman, J. E. (2009). Assessment linked to middle school science learning goals: A report on field test results for four middle school science topics. 1–32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237533442

  • DiSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B. L., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.

  • Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., Avargil, S., Kohen, Z., & Saar, L. (2018). Context-based learning and metacognitive prompts for enhancing scientific text comprehension. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1198–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukerich, L. (2015). Applying modeling instruction to high school chemistry to improve students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1315–1319. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500909w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A., Halim, A. S., Kasner, G., Wilhelm, C. A., Moon, A., Gere, A. R., & Shultz, G. V. (2020). Capturing student conceptions of thermodynamics and kinetics using writing. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(3), 922–939. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00292h

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1115–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9444-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, S., Forbus, K., & Sherin, B. (2018). Representing, running, and revising mental models: A computational model. Cognitive Science, 42(4), 1110–1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J.K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modeling-based teaching in science education. Cham: Springer Nature.

  • Göhner, M. F., Bielik, T., & Krell, M. (2022). Investigating the dimensions of modeling competence among preservice science teachers: Meta-modeling knowledge, modeling practice, and modeling product. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, K. E., Wittmann, M. C., Vokos, S., & Scherr, R. E. (2019). Drawings of energy: Evidence of the Next Generation Science Standards model of energy in diagrams. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 10129. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallström, J., & Schönborn, K. J. (2019). Models and modelling for authentic STEM education: Reinforcing the argument. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40594-019-0178-Z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamza, K., Wickman, P.-O., & Kelly, G. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92(1), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. J., Penuel, W. R., D’Angelo, C. M., DeBarger, A. H., Gallagher, L. P., Kennedy, C. A., Cheng, B. H., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1362–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2011). Using distractor-driven standards-based multiple-choice assessments and Rasch modeling to investigate hierarchies of chemistry misconceptions and detect structural problems with individual items. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1rp90023d

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H.-F.F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkinen, J., Klager, C., Juuti, K., Schneider, B., Salmela-Aro, K., Krajcik, J., & Lavonen, J. (2020). High school students’ situational engagement associated with scientific practices in designed science learning situations. Science Education, 104(4), 667–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2005). Modeling instruction : An effective model for science education. Science Educator, 17(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9225-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, O., Blonder, R., & Oversby, J. (2013). How to balance chemistry education between observing phenomena and thinking in models. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook (pp. 97–126). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_4

  • Justi, R., Gilbert, J. K., & Ferreira, P. F. M. (2009). The application of a ‘model of modelling’ to illustrate the importance of metavisualisation in respect of the three types of representation. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (Vol. 4, pp. 285–307). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8

  • Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2021). Developing and using multiple models to promote scientific literacy in the context of socio-scientific issues. Science and Education, 30, 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00206-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, L., Zangori, L. A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2020). Integrating scientific modeling and socio-scientific reasoning to promote scientific literacy. In W. Powell (Ed.), Socioscientific Issues-Based Instruction for Scientific Literacy Development (pp. 31–54). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4558-4.ch002

  • Kite, V., Park, S., McCance, K., & Seung, E. (2021). Secondary science teachers’ understandings of the epistemic nature of science practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(3), 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1808757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohen, Z., & Orenstein, D. (2021). Mathematical modeling of tech-related real-world problems for secondary school-level mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10020-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L., Krajcik, J. S., Edelson, D. C., Reiser, B. J., & Starr, M. L. (2010). Project-based science inquiry: air quality. Armonk, NY: It’s About Time.

  • Lavi, R., Shwartz, G., & Dori, Y. J. (2019). Metacognition in chemistry education: A literature review. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 59(6), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijch.201800087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazenby, K., & Becker, N. M. (2021). Evaluation of the students’ understanding of models in science (SUMS) for use in undergraduate chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00084a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazenby, K., Stricker, A., Brandriet, A., Rupp, C. A., Mauger-Sonnek, K., & Becker, N. M. (2020). Mapping undergraduate chemistry students’ epistemic ideas about models and modeling. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(5), 794–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locatelli, S. W., & Davidowitz, B. (2021). Using metavisualization to revise an explanatory model regarding a chemical reaction between ions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(2), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00339e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchak, D., Shvarts-Serebro, I., & Blonder, R. (2021). Crafting molecular geometries: Implications of neuro-pedagogy for teaching chemical content. Cite This: Journal of Chemical Education, 98, 1321–1327. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

  • Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. In Educational Research Review (Vol. 9, pp. 129–144). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002

  • Penuel, W. R., Harris, C. J., & DeBarger, A. H. (2015). Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(6), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715575299/FORMAT/EPUB

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, N. (2021). Advances in chemistry education series (N. Reid (ed.)). Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781839163661-00048

  • Rery, R., Copriady, J., Alimin, M., & Wilda Albeta, S. (2020). Analysis of science motivation based on learning of conventional, realistic and hybrid image in chemistry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1655(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1655/1/012041

  • Roche Allred, Z. D., & Bretz, S. L. (2019). University chemistry students’ interpretations of multiple representations of the helium atom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(2), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00296g

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samarapungavan, A., Bryan, L., & Wills, J. (2017). Second graders’ emerging particle models of matter in the context of learning through model-based inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 988–1023. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/SCE.20177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shemwell, J. T., Avargil, S., & Capps, D. K. D. K. (2015a). Grappling with long-term learning in science: A qualitative study of teachers’ views of developmentally oriented instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(8), 1163–1187. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shemwell, J. T., Gwarjanski, K. R., Capps, D. K., Avargil, S., & Meyer, J. L. (2015b). Supporting teachers to attend to generalisation in science classroom argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.1000428

  • Stieff, M. (2019). Improving learning outcomes in secondary chemistry with visualization-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Chemical Education. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M., & DeSutter, D. (2021). Sketching, not representational competence, predicts improved science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(1), 128–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/TEA.21650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia. Teaching Science-the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 53(4), 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Prain, V., Aranda, G., Ferguson, J., & Gorur, R. (2020). Drawing to reason and learn in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinson, E. L., Stetzer, M. R., Lewin, J. D., & Smith, M. K. (2020). The university classroom observation program: Connecting middle and high school teachers with university instructors. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 24(2), 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z., Chi, S., Hu, K., & Chen, W. (2014). Chemistry teachers’ knowledge and application of models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9455-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, F. M., & Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A. (2021). The current state of methods for establishing reliability in qualitative chemistry education research articles. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1rp00007a

  • Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. E., & Macrander, C. A. (2015). Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 396–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9497-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zangori, L., Vo, T., Forbes, C. T., & Schwarz, C. V. (2017). Supporting 3rd-grade students model-based explanations about groundwater: A quasi-experimental study of a curricular intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1421–1442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1336683

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Mitchell R. M. Bruce and Prof. François G. Amar from the Department of Chemistry at The University of Maine. We appreciate their support and comments. The second author would like to thank the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology for providing a graduate student scholarship. We would like to thank Dr. Zehavit Kohen for her comments on the statistical analysis.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DRL-0962805).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education in Science and Technology, Technion, Haifa, Israel

    Shirly Avargil & Arunika Saxena

Authors
  1. Shirly Avargil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arunika Saxena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shirly Avargil.

Ethics declarations

Disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the granting agency.

Ethics Approval

The research has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB); record ID is 31688231. All parents signed a parental consent form, and all students signed a student assent form. The research’s digital documents are all password-protected. All the questionnaires remain in a secure location. The gathered and analyzed questionnaires have been stripped of all personal information, including student names.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests. Notes of Acknowledgment:  We would like to thank Prof. Mitchell R. M. Bruce and Prof. François G. Amar from the Department of Chemistry at The University of Maine. We appreciate their support and comments. The second author would like to thank the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology for providing a graduate student scholarship. We would like to thank Dr. Zehavit Kohen for her comments on the statistical analysis

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. Pre- and post- closed-ended questions

Appendix. Pre- and post- closed-ended questions

figure a

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avargil, S., Saxena, A. Students’ Drawings, Conceptual Models, and Chemistry Understanding in the Air-Quality Learning Unit. Res Sci Educ 53, 841–865 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10107-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10107-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation