connecting chemistry and engineering: a technology-supported desalination design project
TRANSCRIPT
Connecting Chemistry and Engineering: A Technology-Supported Desalination Design Project
California STEM Symposium, October 10th, 2016Dr. Dermot F. Donnelly, Fresno State
[email protected]; @dfdonn
Guiding Questions For This Session
1. What is the impact of technology-supported projects on students’ submicrorepresentations (SMRs) of desalination and concentration?
2. What are students’ attitudes towards projects in Chemistry and the use of technology to support projects?
Background LiteratureStudent difficulties with submicrorepresentations (SMRs) – limited empirical studies
(Adadan & Savasci, 2012; Devetak, Vogrinc, & Glažar, 2009; McDonagh, 2014)
Visualizations are helpful, but require scaffolding(Linn & Eylon, 2011; McElhaney et al., 2015)
Students generally like projects(Kanter, 2010; Krajcik and Blumenfeld, 2006)
Students have mixed attitudes about technology(Ng, 2012; O’Connell & Dyment, 2016)
Project Context - Drought
Project Concepts - Desalination
PHeT Simulation Within WISE
Inquiry Map
Students Collect
Evidence
7
Knowledge Integration Framework(Linn & Eylon, 2011)
Predict Interact
CompareExplain
Integration
ELICIT ADD
DISTINGUISHREFLECT
YES
NO
MAYBE
I think X because...
Moreover...
However...
NGSS Alignment of Desalination Project
Cross-cutting -Energy & Matter-Scale, proportion and quantity-Systems and system model
Practices-Constructing explanations and designing solutions-Planning and carrying out investigations
Core Ideas-PS1 – Matter & Its Interactions-PS3 – Energy-ETS1 – Engineering design
Method• Quantitative Study
-8 Pre/post items (4 reported here)-Short attitudinal questionnaire-Classroom observations
• High School, 5 classes of 1 female teacher’s AP Chemistry. Teacher was first time WISE user. 2 week project.
Student Background• n = 135 students (out of 173 students)• 15.8 years old (n = 120)• 90 females (74%) & 31 males (26%; n = 121)• Hispanic or Latino (53.4 %, n=62), two or more
(16.4%, n=19), Asian (15%, n=17), Caucasian (11.2%, n=13), African American (3%, n=4), Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (1%, n=1)
• Free/Reduced Lunch – 100%• First time using the WISE platform
Pre-Post Items (SMRs)(Adadan & Savasci, 2012; Devetak, Vogrinc, & Glažar, 2009; McDonagh, 2014).
• Heating Saltwater (KI Rubric)• Salt (s) and Salt (aq) (KI Rubric)• Concentration 1 (Binary)• Concentration 2 (Binary)
Example Representation Rubric
Item 1: Heating Saltwater Representations • Shows water particles and salt particles distributed
amongst each other (Before Heating)• Shows salt particles at the bottom of the container
(After Heating) and has the same number of salt particles before and after heating.
• Shows water particles gone, some left, and/or towards the top of the container (After Heating)
Example Representation RubricScore Response Type Nature of Representation
0 No Response/Irrelevant
-Idk/Does an unrelated drawing
1 Incorrect Representation
-Shows the loss of salt particles in the ‘after heating’ diagram-Shows separation of salt and water in the ‘before heating’ diagram-Shows the same amount of water particles in both diagrams
2 1 Representation -At least 1 of the representations noted
3 2 Representations
-At least 2 of the representations noted
4 3 Representations
-All three representations noted
Findings – Student Learning
Heating Saltwater Salt State0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2.64
1.89
3.22
2.34
Pre PostKI Score
n = 135, SD = 1.1, t = 6.37 p = .001, d = 0.55
n = 117, SD = .77, t = 6.09 p = .001, d = 0.61
Findings – Student Learning
Concentration 1 Concentration 20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Pre PostScore (0 or 1)
n = 112, SD = .5, t = 2.46
p = 0.16, d = 0.27
n = 102, SD = 1.0, t = 1.88 p = 0.063, d = 0.12
Findings – Project Attitudes(n = 116)
• 62.9% of the students like doing projects (n = 73)
• 36.2% neither like or dislike doing projects (n = 42)
• 0.09% don’t like projects (n = 1)
Findings – Project Attitudes“I like being able to have a hands-on experience of what we are learning in class. I feel I learn and remember the information better this way.” [251591]
“Projects allow me to think outside the box and do different things from normal school.” [251624]
“I don't really like doing anything at school so I do not enjoy projects.” [251576]
Findings – Project Attitudes
“I don't really like doing projects because it's very stressing so I rather take a test.” [251687]
“I feel that doing projects is hands on and I like learning in that way. I tend to retain more knowledge and be more engaged.” [251693]
Findings – Use of Technology(n = 116)
• 42.2% of students neither like or dislike using technology in projects (n = 49)
• 39.7% like using technology in projects
(n = 46) • 18.1% do not like using technology in projects
(n = 21)
Findings – Use of Technology
“I like that nstead [sic] of wasting paper we can use the website and compapre [sic] with the entire class too.” [251630]
“Technology neither bugs more [sic], nor do I love it.” [251600]
“Sometimes it's hard for me to get internet connection at home.” [251599]
Findings – Use of Technology
“I find technology can be unreliable with very important things although I recognize it's value.” [251694]
“I like the online simulations that we do and videos we watch because they help us understand what we're learning a lot more and in more detail at our own pace.” [251670]
Conclusions
• Value of technology-supported projects to support student learning
• The majority of students enjoy projects in Chemistry, but indicate nuances in the use of technology to support projects
• Simulations need careful scaffolding to support understanding of concentration
Implications for Chemistry Education
• Greater need for relevant and engaging projects in high school chemistry
• Importance of scaffolding in projects such as -the use of timelines, -collaborative sharing by students, and -technology embedded assessment tools involving simulations
Acknowledgements
• Students and teacher who participated in the study
• College of Science and Mathematics, Fresno State
• WISE Research Group, UC Berkeley• PHeT, University of Colorado Boulder
Round Table (30 minutes)
• Go to wise.berkeley.edu• Desalinator Project Preview: goo.gl/yg7w5r• Preview projects from the home page
-Recycling Project, Climate Change Project• Create account in top right corner (Home Page)• Add a project and edit it using the Authoring
Tool – add extra steps or remove steps as desired
• Create project run for students
References• Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. (2012). An analysis of 16–17-year-old students’
understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 513–544. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.636084
• Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J., & Glažar, S. A. (2009). Assessing 16-year-old students’ understanding of aqueous solution at submicroscopic level. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 157–179. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9077-2
• Kanter, D. E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525–551. doi:10.1002/sce.20381
• Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
References• Linn, M., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology
to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.• Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing Knowledge Integration in
Science: Construct, Measures, and Evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10627190801968224
• McBride, E.A., Vitale, J.M, Applebaum, L, Linn, M.C. (2016) Use of Interactive Computer Models to Promote Integration of Science Concepts Through the Engineering Design Process. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
• McDonagh, M. (2014). An Evaluation of Formative Assessment Probes in a Solution Chemistry Teaching Sequence. Unpublished Thesis, University of York.
• McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85. http://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.984506
• Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078.
• O’Connell, T. S., & Dyment, J. E. (2016). “I”m just not that comfortable with technology’: student perceptions of and preferences for Web 2.0 technologies in reflective journals. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(3), 392–411. http://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.984594