november 11 tst_3

8/3/2019 November 11 TST_3

1/51

e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 2 November 20111Ofcial Publication o the Science Teachers Association o TexasSTAT

ASSOCIATION

TEACHERS

OF

TEXAS

S

CIE

NCE

Texas Science TeacherThe

Volume 40, Number2 November 2011

Changing Instructional Practicerough Coaching in the Beginning Teacher Induction and Mentoring

Notable High School Chemistry ConceptsNot Mastered Prior to Entering General Chemistry

Using Science eaching Case Narrativesto Assess the Eectiveness o a Scientifc Inquiry Elementary Science Methods

Course with Hispanic Preservice Elementary eachers

Using a Force Meter to Measure an Objects MassA Potential Misconception


2/51

e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 2 November 20112

Lessons on Caring (contd.)Lessons on Caring (contd.)

TheScienceof A-ha!

Your students can reach thatincredible A-ha! moment when

all their real-world learning comestogether in problem-solving, criticalthinking, collaboration, and recognition.

Up to $240,000 in savings bondsis awarded each year, plusexpense-paid trips to Washington, DCfor national winning students andtheir parents. Schools, coaches, andmentors win too!

Visit www.exploravision.org/texasscience for details.

[email protected] @ToshibaInnovatewww.Facebook.com/ToshibaInnovation

ExploraVision, the worlds largest

K-12 science competition, offersteams of students an opportunityto create and explore their visionsof future technologies.

How can I motivate

my students tolove science?

oraVisionce

leb

ratin

g20yearsofideas

Through Toshiba's shared mission partnership with NSTA,the Toshiba/NSTA ExploraVision competition makes a vitalcontribution to the educational community.

Teachers submitting the most teamprojects win a Toshiba Tablet !


3/51


TST1110

Contact me today to get going!Jim Wheat

[email protected]

512-913-5765

Succeed with ScienceOur science solutions integrate the right web-delivered curriculum, the right teacher tools, and

the instructional expertise of the best implementation, PD and support team in the business.

Leverage your existing resources

Identify new resources many free

Provide focused, effective professional development (PD)

Motivate, engage and excite students

Improve science test scores

Create a truly integrated, project-based learning program

We can help you overcome the major challenges facing

science educators today:


4/51


The Texas Science TeacherVolume 40, Number 2 November 2011

Te exas Science eacher, ocial journal o the Science eachers Association o exas, is published semiannually in Apriland October. Enumeration o each volume begins with the April issue.

Editorial contents are copyrighted. All material appearing in Te exas Science eacher(including editorials, articles, letters,etc.) reects the views o the author(s) and/or advertisers, and does not necessarily reect the views o the Science eachers

Association o exas (SA) or its Board o Directors. Announcements and advertisements or products published in this

journal do not imply endorsement by the Science eachers Association o exas. SA reserves the right to reuse anyannouncement or advertisement that appears to be in conict with the mission or positions o the

Science eachers Association o exas.

Permission is granted by SA or libraries and other users to make single reproductions o Te exas Science eacherortheir personal, noncommercial, or internal use. Authors are granted unlimited noncommercial use. Tis permission does

not extend to any commercial, advertising, promotional, or any other work, including new collective work, which mayreasonably be considered to generate a prot.

For more inormation regarding permissions, contact the Editor:[email protected]

Cover Photo:A Potential Horizon. All Rights Reserved.

Image Credit:Ismael Ramon, student at Palo Duro High School.

Changing Instructional Practiceby Terry Talley

Notable High School Chemistry Conceptsby Anna B. George and Diana Mason

Using a Force Meter to Measure an Objects MassbyAndrzej Sokolowski

Using Science Teaching Case Narrativesby Ron and Amy Wagler

Contents


5/51


Changing Instructional Practice through Coaching in the BeginningTeacher Induction and Mentoring

by Dr. Terry Talley

Mentoring Science Teachers in theGalveston County Regional Collaborative

Teaching is possibly the only pro-fession which tries to give the impressionthat all who enter the classroom know all

instructional best practices and can handle

any situation starting on day one. It is only

after several years of trial and error that the

novice teacher learns to appreciate the col-

laborative gestures of her peers and learns

to ask for ideas when she does not have the

knowledge, skills or resources needed.

The Texas Regional Collaborative(TRC) offered a grant funded by the Texas

Education Agency (TEA) to establish Begin-

ning Teacher Induction and Mentoring Pro-

grams (BTIM) through the Regional Collabor-

atives. The grant provided training through

Mentoring Texas in using research based

practices. The grant began in October 2009

and will follow new science teachers through

their rst two years in the classroom, with

the grant period ending in April 2011. Al-

though, the BTIM programs throughout

Texas have different settings and address

novice teachers from various programs, the

underlying premise is the same provid-

ing academic coaching and supportive re-

lationships. This model, most importantly

includes providing a professional - collegial

relationship which will assist in welcoming

and bolstering a self-doubting and often iso-

lated neophyte into the world of teaching.

Rationale for BTIM Program Mentor/Coaches

Based on the 2003 meta-analysis

research of the Rand Corporation Teach-

ers in the elds of science and mathemat-

ics were more likely to leave teaching than

teachers in other elds. The Rand Study

also stated that the research on in-service

policies that affect teacher retention stated;

schools that provided mentoring and induc-

tion programs, particularly those related to

collegial support, had lower rates of turnoveramong beginning teachers; that schools that

provided teachers with more autonomy and

administrative support had lower levels of

teacher attrition and migration; and that

schools with fewer disciplinary problems

or those that gave teachers discretion over

setting disciplinary policies had lower levels

of teacher attrition and dissatisfaction

(Rand, 2003)

The Rand research (2003) went on

to state, schools with high percentages of

minority students are difcult to staff, and

that teachers tend to leave these schools

when more attractive opportunities present

themselves. It is also evident, however, that

factors that can be altered through policy

can have an impact on the decisions of in-

dividuals to enter teaching and on teachers

decisions to migrate to other schools or quit

teaching. The Rand research (2003) alsooffers information on the effectiveness of a

number of different options in the areas of

compensation, pre-service policies, and in-

service policies, although rigorous research

evaluating the latter two types of policies is

relatively scarce.

The data used in the Rand study are

from the nationally representative 1999

2000 Schools and Stafng Survey. The re-

sults indicate that beginning teachers who

were provided with mentors from the same

subject eld and who participated in collec-

tive induction activities, such as planning

and collaboration with other teachers, were

less likely to move to other schools and less

likely to leave the teaching occupation after

their rst year of teaching. (2003)


6/51


Lessons on Caring (contd.)

wenty Ways to each Vocbulary (contd.)

Lessons on Caring (contd.)Changing Instructional Practice (contd.)

The training provided by the Texas Re-

gional Collaborative is based on the research

of the Professional Development Group in

Birmingham, Alabama. For the training,

two books by Paula Rutherford were pro-vided; Why Didnt I Learn This in College:

Teaching and Learning in the 21st Cen-

tury (2009) and The 21st Century Mentors

Handbook: Creating a Culture for Learning

(2005). In establishing a rationale for the

BTIM program a quote from the forward of

Rutherfords 2009 book gives the TRC-BTIM

training a lightning clear focus. The quote

is from Frank McDonalds, A Study of Induc-

tion Programs for Beginning Teachers:

It is a truism among teachers and especially teacher educa-tors that within the rst six months o the rst experienceo teaching, the teacher will have adopted his or her basicteaching style. Experience indicates that once a teachersbasic teaching style has stabilized, it remains in that ormuntil some other event causes a change, and at the presenttime, there are not many such events producing change. Ithe style adapted is a highly efective one and is the source ostimulation to continuous growth, there would be no prob-lem. But i teachers abandon their ideals and become cyni-

cal, see management at any price as essential, constrict therange o instruction alternatives they will try or use; i theybecome mediocre teachers or minimally competent, then theefect o the transition period on this is a major concern anda problem that needs direct attention. (McDonald, 1980)

The Components of the BTIM Program:A Three-Tiered ApproachProfessional Learning Communities for Colle-

gial Support

The rst component is providing for

professional discourse in a structured set-ting with specic outcomes and goals in

mind. The rst structure incorporated into

the BTIM was the Professional Learning

Community (PLC). Meeting monthly as a

community of learners, the BTIM teachers

gathered to learn more, reect on successes

and struggles, as well as share resources

centered on a common learning theme. Fur-

ther discourse was encouraged and facilitat-

ed through the TOLC (Texas Online Learning

Community) site for professional discourse

and posting of resource for sharing.PLC topics included:

Using the Walls as Instructional Tools

Misconceptions that Interfere with Learn-

ing Science

Questions, Wait Time and Classroom Dis-

cussions

Inquiry, Labs, Data Tables, Graphs and

Charts

Science Literacy and Notebooks

Using Models in Science and Moving

Learning from Concrete to Abstract

Follow up discussions on the Texas

Regional Collaborative TOLC site was estab-

lished for the GCRC-BTIM www.theTRC.org

for after hour collaboration and sharing of

resources among the teachers in the pro-

gram.

Campus and Classroom Interactions

The second component, Campus andClassroom Interactions includes observa-

tions both scheduled and unscheduled,

coaching, providing resources, as well as

offering assistance by model teaching, co-

teaching, lesson planning and listening.

Classroom Walk-Through Visits(CWT)

based on the model by Carolyn Downey

in her book, The Three-Minute Classroom

Walk-Through: Changing School Supervi-

sory Practice One Teacher at a Time, (2004)where the mentor visits a classroom for a

short period of time, sitting down in the

back of the classroom to observe how the

students were responding to the teachers

planned lesson for the day. Often, students

would share what they are learning or in-

volve the observer in a lab they were doing.


7/51


During these observations the mentor/coach

would look for artifacts of learning, student

work, student engagement with the lesson,

journaling, work and words on the walls,

posters students constructed as well asmodels about the room.

Data Collection Observationsare also

campus interaction which encompasses an

entire science class period. These monthly

scheduled observations include the collec-

tion of data concerning student engagement

throughout a lesson as well as the interac-

tions between the teacher and students in

the room.

Coaching Sessionsare 30 minute in

length and are scheduled monthly during

a teachers planning period the week after

a scheduled observation. The focus of the

observation is to share the data collected

during the scheduled observation concern-

ing student engagement and teacher inter-

actions with students. The session ends

with the determination of which data is to be

gathered during the next -scheduled obser-vation. The date and time for the observa-

tion is placed on the calendar.

Planning, assisting and modeling les-

sonsoccur during a one-hour visit. The

mentee decides which activity the mentor

is to do. The mentor may be asked to assist

with a lab, or model a lesson so the mentee

can watch the ow or pacing. Within the

same session, student and materials man-

agement could occur. Many mentees re-quest assistance in planning a future lesson

or a unit of study which incorporates re-

sources and ideas the mentor has provided

in previous sessions or she may be asked to

assist in locating resources that are appro-

priate or assist in differentiating a lesson as

a Response to Intervention (RTI) for a special

needs student or for meeting the English

Language Prociency Standards (ELPS) for

an English Language Learner.

Professional Development for Content

KnowledgeThe third component is Professional

Content Learning. Often rst and second

year science teachers come to the classroom

with a general understanding of their grade

level content, but gain self-condence from

an opportunity to learn more specic and

detailed content prior to instruction. Well-re-

searched and standards-based science con-

tent is easily accessed through Online NSTA

provided to all BTIM participants. Sustained

learning opportunities are offered throughmany opportunities such as the BTIM three-

day Best Practices in Science Mini-Confer-

ence which provides an in depth study of the

BSCS 5 E Lesson Model (BSCS, 2006) and

an infusion of high-yield strategies as dis-

cussed by Marzano, Pickering and Pollock in

their meta-analysis: Classroom Instruction

that Works (2001), and student- based tech-

nology such as force and motion probes and

computer simulations.

The another sustained learning pro-

gram for the BTIM participants is free access

to the summer professional development of-

fered by the Galveston County Regional Col-

laborative (GCRC) through the UTMB Ofce

of Education Outreach and the Southeast

Regional T-STEM (SRT-STEM) Center. The

GCRC sponsored a three-day Introduction to

Inquiry Institute based on the training from

the Exploratorium Museums Institute forInquiry. The SRT-STEM offered a two-day

Lego Robotics Academy, and many other T-

STEM Bio-Technology opportunities.

Observing for Implementation of BestPractices

Based on the research of instructional

practices which yield high levels of student

Changing Instructional Practice (contd.)


8/51


achievement reported as effect size (Mar-

zano,2001), data was collected during ob-

servations throughout the year from Janu-

ary to May, using an adapted observation

checklist designed by the Charles A. DanaCenter for their Instructional Leadership

Academies (2009) and the Downey Class-

room Walk Through Protocol (Downey,2004).

Using these tools, collected data provides

opportunities to analyze implementation of

the instructional practices and ways teach-

ers modied instructional materials as dis-

cussed during coaching sessions and as part

of the Professional Learning Communities.

To determine the effectiveness of the

use of coaching and professional learning

communities (PLC) as key factors in a men-

toring program, before and after observa-

tions, will be compared to determine the

levels of implementation of the key compo-

nents of effective instruction as identied by

the two observation checklists.

The focus of the observation protocol

was the collection of data in four main ar-eas which reveal teacher growth towards a

transformed classroom where the student

is the focus of instruction rather than the

teacher:

Focus on the Curriculum Were the

instructional goals and state standards

noted by the teacher, evident to students,

and on grade level?

Focus on Instruction Did the lesson

plan incorporate high yield strategies that

were student-centered?

Focus on the Student Were the students

engaged in meaningful work that was

cognitively appropriate?

Focus on the Environment Was the

classroom environment set up for student

success with meaningful artifacts and

structures?

Focus on CurriculumIn a comparison of the initial observa-

tion in January and the nal observation in

May, there was only a slight change in the

number of teachers who posted their objec-tives, based on district requirements that

daily learning objectives be presented to the

students. These data changes do not reect

general practice among BTIM teachers, but

were based failure to post daily objectives on

the board area labeled as Agenda as op-

posed to including them in oral introductory

routines for classes. Alignment of objectives

to on grade-level objectives improved when

focus was brought to the level of the verbs inthe objectives. See Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Focus on InstructionInitial observation data indicates

an over dependence on PowerPoint based-

lectures, packaged computer software for

instruction and teacher questions to check

for understanding. In a majority of class-

rooms the most frequently observed model

of instruction was direct instruction. Most

often this model displayed an absence of

student engagement, students were not

given time to discuss the content or make

meaning of new knowledge. It teachers did

not provide time for closure to the lesson.

Teacher-asked questions were the dominant

13

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

1a Objective known 1b Evident tostudents

1c On grade level

Focus on CurriculumThe Objective of the Lesson

January

May



9/51


Conusing Language (contd.)

engagement activity one teacher question to one student answer. There was little or no

discussion. Often times the teacher would begin directly with the lecture without engaging

prior knowledge or creating student interest in the subject matter. In the data table iden-

tied as Figure 7, the data show the planned instructional strategies of the 20 secondary

BTIM mentees in January, compared to May. There is a decrease in the use of lectures andan increase in discussions, modeling and providing opportunities for students to practice

with the information through hands-on experiences, student to student discussions and

teacher coaching with facilitating questions. One area of concern which materialized was a

major decrease in the use of feedback at the end of the lesson, based on the daily objectives

although an increase in did occur in recognition of effort to increase motivation of students.

Teachers appeared to be rushed at the end of the class period and sacriced closure and

feedback for the lesson objective to more time in class for the activities.

Figure 7.

Another aspect of lesson design is in the way the teacher plans for the students to

interact with each othe and the materials. Based on a comparison of the observations in

January and May, as seen in Figure 8, there was a decrease in the selection of whole group

activities and greater use of activities in smaller groups and pairs.

Figure 8.


0

5

10

15

20

Whole Small Group Paired Individual

Numberof

Classrooms

Planning for Instruction - Grouping Format

JanuaryMay


10/51



As part of the lesson planning process, teachers make instructional decisions based

on knowledge of research-based instructional practices. As teachers gain experience in les-

son planning and making conscious decisions to select more-effective strategies, there is a

greater number of instructional strategies incorporated into the lesson design and a greater

variety is employed through out the lesson. As seen in Figure 9 below, among the 20 sec-ondary BTIM teachers observed, there was a decrease in the use of only scaffolded advance

organizers such as notetaking worksheets and an increase in the use of a variety of other

meaningful strategies such as non-linguistic representations, summarizing and notetak-

ing, as well as similarities and diffferences, being incoprorated throughout the lesson. It

is important to note that with the increase in lab activities came an increase in the use of

generating and testing of hypotheses. For both observations, when more than one strategy

was incoprorated into the lesson successfully, it was recorded. The number of strategies

used totals more than the twenty secondary teachers represented in the study when teach-

ers used more than one strategy successfully.

Figure 9.

Focus on the LearnerThe third area of focus in the observation is on the student and what the student

does during the lesson. The primary student activities changed dramatically from the initial

observation in January to nal observation in May. From the data represented in Figure

10, there is a marked decrease in the time the teacher spends speaking (lecturing and giv-

ing directions) with the students listening and the time in which students are working with

hands-on materials - speaking and listening to each other concerning their learning. It ap-

pears that later in the year the students spend a more balanced amount of time speaking,

listening, writing and working with hands on materials.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Similarities and Differences

Summarizing/Notetaking

Reinforcing Effort - Recognition

HW and Practice

Nonlinguistic Repr.

Cooperative Learning

Setting Objectives / Providing Feedback

Generating Hypothesis

Questions, Cues and Advance Organizers

None

Planning for Instruction - High Yield Strategies

May

January



11/51



Figure 10.

Another aspect of Focusing on the

Student is looking at what the student is

given to use for instructional materials. In

the data comparison represented by Figure

11, there was a marked change in the types

of instructional materials prepared for stu-

dents in May compared to January. There

was a decrease in the use of worksheets and

published print materials and an increase in

the use of real-world materials, student cre-

ated materials, and lab activity sheets. This

change followed several coaching sessions

and several Professional Learning Commu-

nity (PLC) discussions, where attention was

given to the quality and depth of teachercreated materials compared to worksheets

provided by textbook ancillary materials

such as guided reading workbooks or black

line masters downloaded from the Internet.

These materials did not reach the rigor of

the TEKS standards. As teachers became

more sophisticated in their understanding

and selection of instructional materials, stu-

dents became more engaged in the learning

process. Student collaboration became com-

mon and student created graphic organizersand folding organizers were found in student

journals.

Figure 11.

The use of well-designed, student-cen-

tered instructional materials became more

evident in the BTIM teachers classrooms

in May compared to January. Teachers

were learning how to ask questions requir-

ing more cognitive processing. This change

shows as higher-cognitive rigor in the stu-

dent work. Figure 12 compares observation

data, based on the highest level of Blooms

taxonomy encountered during the observed

lessons and student work in January and

May. There is a signicant difference in theexpectations and student products in during

the passage of the school year.

Figure 12.

0

2

46

8

10

12

14

Listening Reading Speaking Writing Hands OnMaterials

None

Focus on the Learner - Student Actions

January May

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Computers

Manipulatives

Hand-held

Technology

Lab/ActivitySheet

Oral

OH/Board/FlipChart

PublishedPrint

Materials

Real-worldobjects

Student-created

materials

Textbook

Video

Websites

Worksheets

None

Focus on the Learner - Instructional Materials

January May

0

2

46

8

10

12

14

16

Knowledge-recall

Comprehension

Application

Analysis

Synthesis

Evaluation

None

N

u

m

b

e

r

o

f

C

l

a

s

s

r

o

o

ms

Focus on the Learner - Levels of Student Work

January May



12/51



In addition to preparing students work that is respectful of their time and challeng-

ing of their intellect, the teacher is mindful that the students should be able to become fully

engaged in the lesson and the materials. Based on the Dana Center Checklist (2009), the

criteria for engagement are as follows:

Highly engaged most students are authentically engaged. Well managed students are willingly compliant, ritually engaged.

Disengaged many students actively reject the assigned task or substitute other activ-

ity. (Charles A Dana Center, Window on the Classroom, 2009)

Classroom observations regarding the levels of student engagement, conducted in

January and May, reveal signicant changes. In conjunction with the changed lesson for-

mat, engaging instructional materials, and setting up structures for student interactions,

Figure 13 represents data which reveals an overall higher level of student engagement com-

pared to the well-managed or disengaged classroom earlier in the school year.

Figure 13.

Focusing on the Learning EnvironmentThe nal focus of the observations included the learning environment. The ar-

rangement of classroom materials, desks, as well as items on the walls play a major role in

setting the stage for learning and for supporting retention of learning for greater gains in

achievement. Based on the data collected during the two compared observations, and as

displayed in Figure 13, there is a marked increase in the use of the walls as an important

part of the learning environment as well for the display of exemplars, models and student

work. Placing directions for expected routines, protocols, and behavior became more evi-

dent in the BTIM teachers classrooms as they began to discuss the advantages of these

reminders in PLC sessions as well as in online discussions.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Highly Engaged Well Managed Disengaged

Focus on the Learner -Level of Class Engagement

January May


13/51


Conusing Language (contd.)Changing Instructional Practice (contd.)

Figure 14.

Upon analysis of observation data,

after 5 months in the BTIM program which

included 5 PLC sessions and three coach-

ing sessions, the comparative data reveal an

overall signicant change in the quality of

planning for instruction with the inclusion of

a greater variety of high-yield instructional

strategies, in preparing and using high-qual-ity instruction materials and in providing

a classroom environment where learning is

evident and supports student achievement.

The data collected through observa-

tion protocols were focused in three main ar-

eas: 1) Instruction instructional practices,

group format, and instructional strategies;

2) Learner student actions, instructional

materials and levels of student work; as well

as 3) Environment - the walls, desk arrange-

ments, and support materials. The conclu-

sions that can be drawn by comparing the

data from the initial observation in January

and the nal observation in May lead to an

understanding of the potential structures

such a Professional Learning Communities

(PLC) and coaching can have towards im-

pacting classroom practice, especially among

rst and second year science teachers.

Conclusions Based on the First Year of

BTIMAs indicated in the research by Inger-

soll and Smith (2001, 2003) and the Rand

Corporation (2003) there is a need for ad-

ministrative support for beginning year sci-

ence teachers. Administrative support was

gained through the letters of support pro-

vided by the school districts the GRC-BTIM

is serving within Galveston County. BTIM

mentors received support and encourage-

ment from the campus and district admin-istration as the program mentors continued

to visit teachers in their classrooms, provide

resources, facilitated PLC meeting, as well as

provide additional professional development

through the Regional Collaboratives. As we

visited teachers regularly, we also met with

campus administrators to keep open the

lines of communication.

As we evaluate the successes and

missteps from our rst year, and begin thestart of the new school year, we have had

requests from the administration of these

districts to continue and expand the support

we are providing. At a time of diminishing

budgets, grant funded projects are prized

and utilized.

There are strong indicators for the ef-

fectiveness of the BTIM program, such as,

nearly perfect attendance at each of the PLC

meetings, mentee requests for more frequent

visits, district personnel requests service to

more novice teachers, and the data analy-

sis comparing observations in January and

May.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Focus on the Classroom Environment

January

May


14/51


The next step in the evaluation process will be an analysis of achievement gains on

State Assessments such as the TAKS, STAAR, and EOC, for those taught by teachers in

mentoring programs such as BTIM compared to those who are mentored in other programs,

as well as those not mentored at all. We would also like to evaluate new teacher reten-

tion based on teacher participation in a mentoring program such as the BTIM compared toother mentoring programs and those not mentored at all.

Finally, a follow-up comparison will be conducted to determine if there is increased

improvement in teacher effectiveness as novice teachers begin their second year of teaching

while being supported by a mentoring program, compared to those who continue teaching

without mentoring support.

Resources:

AC (2007) Rigor at Risk: Rearming Quality in the High School Core Curriculum. Iowa City, IA

Bybee, Roger Y., aylor, Joseph A., Gardner, April, Van Scotter, Pamela, Powell, Carlson, Westbrook, Anne and Landes, Nancy. (2006)e BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins, Eectiveness, and Applications, Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Charles A. Dana Center. (2010)Instructional Leadership. Austin, X: Te Charles A. Dana Center.

Downey, Carolyn J., Stefy, Betty E., English, Fenwick W., Frase, Larry E., and Poston, Jr., William K. (2004) e ree-MinuteClassroom Walk-rough: Changing School Supervisory Practice One Teacher at a Time. Tousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ingersoll, Richard M. (2001) eacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.American Educational ResearchJournal; all 2001; 38, 3; pg. 499. Retrieved online on July 17, 2010 rom ABI/INFORM Global

Ingersoll, Richard M. and Smith, Tomas M., (2003). e Wrong Solution to the Teacher Shortage. Education Leadership; May 2003; 60,

8: pp 30-33. Retrieved July 17, 2010 Online rom Ebsco AN9722710.

Marzano, Robert J., Pickering, Debra J., and Pollock, Jane E. (2001) Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-based Strategies forIncreasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Rutherord, Paula (2009) Why Didnt I Learn is in College: Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century. Alexandria, VA: Just AskPublications.


Terry Talley, Ed.D. earned her Doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction rom the University o Northexas. She recently retired ater 25 years in public education rom Lewisville ISD where she served as Sec-ondary Science Supervisor. erry is past-president o the exas Science Education Leadership Association(SELA) and a member o the Science eachers Association o exas (SA) and the National Science

eachers Association (NSA). Dr. alley is living on Galveston Island, where she is active in the educationcommunity by consulting, serving as Project Manager and mentor or the BIM Program, and workingpart-time as the Co-Director o the SR-SEM Center both sponsored by UMB Of ice o EducationalOutreach.


15/51


STEMscopesCenter for Technology in Teaching and Learning

Rice University 713-348-5433

STEMscopes@rice. edu

Comprehensive online student learning

experiences tightly aligned to TEKS and

STAAR that enhance teaching for beginning

to master teachers with hands-on science

activities using the research-

based 5E lesson cycle.

To see FREE all thatSTEMscopes hasto offer and to viewsample scopesfor each gradelevel

1.Goto:sample.stemscopes.com2.EnterID:guest

&Password:guest2.ClickonScopesand

explore!

Science....Blast Off!

Hundreds of evaluation

and intervention tools

5E lessons for all

STAAR Science

Readiness and

Supporting Standards

K-8

www.stemscopes.com

ElementaryK-5 Middle School: 6-8

Aligned Scopes 5-8th grade approved

resource for the TexasSupplemental Science

Adoption!Funand

Complete!

STAAR


16/51


Notable High School Chemistry Concepts NotMastered Prior to Entering General Chemistry

by Anna B. George and Diana Mason

Abstract

With the advent of the end-of-course (EOC) State of Texas Assessmentof Academic Readiness (STAAR) exams in

chemistry, it is necessary to hone in on

specic topics that need targeted attention.

In this study 286 postsecondary students

enrolled at a large north Texas public uni-

versity were evaluated as to their retention

of typical rst semester general chemistry

concepts using the nationally recognized

American Chemical Society (ACS) California

Chemistry Diagnostic Exam 1997 (CA Dx).

The ve most common misconceptions held

by these general chemistry students were

identied as: bond polarity, use of signi-

cant gures in laboratory procedures, Lewis

dot structures, nomenclature, and algebraic

relationships in gas laws. In addition, pos-

sible sources of these errors and suggestions

for correction are discussed.

Keywords: high school chemistry standards,

college readiness, general chemistry, mis-conceptions, mastery

IntroductionWhat is learned in high school chem-

istry is important to students future suc-

cess. General chemistry, a known gateway

course to several STEM degrees including

biology, biochemistry, engineering, and

chemistry ultimately impacts future STEM

careers. The Texas Education Agency (TEA)

sets the standards for public education fromrst grade to high school in Texas. High

school teachers are supposed to base their

curricula on the Texas Essential Knowledge

and Skills (TEKS). The TEKS were initially

adopted in July 1997 and have been revised

many times since. The TEKS are tested on

the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

Skills (TAKS), a test that students must pass

in order to graduate from high school (Texas

Education Agency and Pearson, 2009). The

State of Texas Assessments of Academic

Readiness (STAAR) program, which consists

of 12 end-of-course exams (EOCs), will re-

place the TAKS test as a graduation require-

ment for students in the ninth grade during

the 2011-2012 school year according to the

House Bill 3 Transition Plan (Texas Educa-

tion Agency, 2010a). Since the Chemistry

STAAR has yet to be instituted, this study

can only assess students knowledge of

those who were required to sit for the ge-

neric high-stakes TAKS Science exam. Thisstudy also serves to document persistent

problem areas that need concentrated at-

tention for current secondary students who

choose to matriculate to postsecondary op-

portunities.

iSMART

Be SMART.Think SMART.iSMART.

IntegratedScience,MathAndReflectiveTeaching!

Fully Funded M.Ed. forTexas Area Middle School Math & Science Teachers!

Come visit our booth at CAST.Dallas Convention CenterNovember 17-19, 2011

Email: [email protected]://www.coe.uh.edu/academic-programs/ismart


17/51


Notable High School Chemistry Concepts (contd.)

The Texas Higher Education Coordi-

nating Board (THECB) works to ensure the

quality of postsecondary education for Texas

students. Texas is among the rst states to

develop a set of readiness standards. Thesestandards have been published as the Texas

College and Career Readiness Standards

(TCCRS) that were adopted in January 2008

(Texas Education Agency, 2010b). The TC-

CRS for chemistry include specic compe-

tencies for the following concepts: matter

and its properties, atomic structure, periodic

table, chemical bonding, chemical reactions,

chemical nomenclature, the mole and stoi-

chiometry, thermochemistry, properties andbehavior of gases, liquids, and solids, basic

structure and function of biological mol-

ecules, and nuclear chemistry (THECB and

TEA, 2008). These standards have played an

inuential role in the current revised TEKS

of 2010.

What is college readiness?College Readiness Assessment in High School

Mastery of the TEKS is currentlymeasured by performance on the TAKS.

The TAKS test was mandated by the Texas

Legislature in 1999 and was rst admin-

istered in the spring of 2002-2003 school

year to students in grade 11 (Texas Educa-

tion Agency and Pearson, 2009). The exit-

level TAKS given in grade 11 became a high

school graduation requirement for the stu-

dents that were in grade 8 as of January

1, 2001 (Texas Education Agency, Pearson

Educational Measurement, Harcourt Educa-

tional Measurement, and BETA Inc., 2004).

This test is now being phased out and re-

placed with the STAAR EOC exams, one of

which will be in chemistry. The graduating

class of the 2014-2015 school year will be

the rst cohort of students to be required to

take and pass STAAR exams as part of their

graduation requirements pending any leg-

islative changes according to the House Bill

3 Transition Plan (Texas Education Agency,

2010a). As of now, Texas Education Code

TAC 74.62, which discusses graduation re-quirements, states that students must meet

state assessment requirements as well as

complete and pass several courses including

a minimum of three credits of mathemat-

ics (including one year of Algebra I and one

year of Geometry), and two credits of science

(including one year of Biology and one year

of Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC)

or one year of a separate Chemistry course)

(Texas Administrative Code, 2010).

The Exit Level TAKS test includes

four sections: English Language Arts, So-

cial Studies, Mathematics, and Science. The

TAKS measures statewide curricula in Read-

ing at grades 3-9; in Writing at grades 4 and

7; in English Language Arts at grades 10

and 11; Social Studies at grades 8, 10, and

11; in Mathematics at grades 3-11; and in

Science at grades 5, 10, and 11. A student

must have satisfactory performance on allsections of the TAKS tests administered in

grade 11 to be eligible for a high school di-

ploma in the state of Texas. If a student does

not pass the test during this administration,

the student has other opportunities to re-

take and pass the test in order to success-

fully complete high school (Texas Education

Agency and Pearson, 2009).

It is assumed that students at the

University of North Texas (UNT) who enroll

in General Chemistry for Science Majors

(gen chem I) have met the prerequisite re-

quirements for course enrollment. Accord-

ing to the 2010-2011 UNT course catalog,

students are required to take and pass Col-

lege Algebra (or equivalent) before they are

allowed to register for this course. The pre-


18/51



requisite for College Algebra is two years of

high school algebra, one year of geometry, or

the consent of the mathematics department

indicating that the equivalent of the College

Algebra level has been acquired (Universityof North Texas, 2010).

Assessment of College Readiness inCollege Level ChemistryNoncognitive Predictor: Motivation

According to Zusho, Pintrich, and

Coppola (2003) the issue of the students

view of themselves as chemistry students

and their impression of the subject of chem-

istry impact their level of achievement in

college chemistry courses. This study found

that as students received feedback from

their examinations, their condence levels

fell with the exception of the students char-

acterized as high achievers. The authors

conclusions emphasized the importance of

maintaining self-efcacy levels and observed

that successful students began using self-

regulatory and organizational strategies as

the course progressed. This study pointed

out that in addition to students who typi-cally achieve higher scores in postsecondary

chemistry, motivated middle achievers did

well in this course (Zusho et al., 2003).

According to a recent student evalu-

ation in gen chem I, prior knowledge is the

most important factor that can be used to

predict success in this course (Manrique,

2010). This is consistent with the Unied

Learning Model (ULM) of Shell, Brooks,

Trainin, Wilson, Kauffman, and Herr (2010),and suggests how important it is for high

school teachers to successfully teach chem-

istry material to students. A students logic

skills were also shown to be very important

to succeed in the chemistry classroom. A

scientist needs logic skills to solve complex

problems. The ULM focuses on the basic

components of learning that are common

amongst all learning theories. It is a simple

model that can be used to explain all ob-

served learning phenomena (Manrique,

2010). The main components of this modelare: prior knowledge, working memory, and

motivation. The working memory is the loca-

tion where new knowledge is temporarily

stored and processed. Knowledge is dened

as everything we know stored in long-term

memory or our prior knowledge. This prior

knowledge includes everything from facts,

skills, behaviors and thinking processes.

Motivation is the catalyst to learning. If a

student is not motivated to learn a new

concept, the new knowledge will not even be

temporarily stored into the working memory.

Motivation directs the working memory to

learn a new task (Shell et al., 2010).

Cognitive Predictor: Prior Knowledge

The California Chemistry Diagnostic

Test 1997 (CA Dx) was originally designed

to be used as screening tool for students

interested in enrolling in college level gen-

eral chemistry in California and has evolvedinto a useful diagnostic tool (Russell, 1994).

It was validated in 1995 as a predictor for

academic success (Karp, 1995). This study

focused on the use of the CA Dx as a tool for

assessment of college readiness for students

enrolled in gen chem I. The CA Dx requires

that 44 questions be answered in 45 min-

utes; any question left blank is counted as a

wrong answer. The CA Dx has been given as

a diagnostic pre-test by the second author

since fall 2001 generating a mean (standarddeviation) of 18.41 (6.29) with a range of 5

to 42 for a student population of n = 1,638,

which is below the national mean of 20.45

(7.56). A copy of the CA Dx exam may be

ordered from http://chemexams.chem.iastate.edu/order/index.cm (American Chemical SocietyDivision of Chemical Education, 2009).



19/51


Some schools use the CA Dx as an

optional test that allows students to en-

roll directly into general chemistry when a

preparatory course is available. Students

at Winthrop University in South Carolina,University of Nevada, Las Vegas and Santa

Monica College in California can enroll di-

rectly into general chemistry and avoid

taking introductory chemistry by passing

the CA Dx (Santa Monica College, 2007;

University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Winthrop

University). UNT does not have this option

so all students who enroll in a science major

sequence must take General Chemistry for

Science Majors. Another option is to score

a 3, 4, or 5 on the College Board Advanced

Placement Chemistry (AP exam) that usually

places students into the second semester

of general chemistry (University of Califor-

nia, Riverside, 2010). Not all universities

offer an introductory chemistry course nor

will all universities accept AP credit. At UNT

students who have completed the published

prerequisites are allowed to enroll in gen

chem I and are expected to acquire any de-

cient background knowledge on their own.

ProblemDespite the national and state stan-

dards required to graduate from high school,

there will always be concepts that are not

retained by students between the time they

are evaluated on the TEKS and when they

enter general chemistry at the postsecond-

ary level. Students enrolled at UNT have

been shown to lack knowledge of founda-

tional general chemistry concepts such assignicant gures (especially those needed

to employ rules for adding/subtracting),

chemical structure (such as bond polar-

ity and Lewis structures), basic chemical

nomenclature, and algebraic relationships

(such as those used in gas law calculations).

Students are also making careless errors

such as not paying attention to accepted

denitions or not using their time allotted

wisely.

The purpose of this investigation is

to identify the most common concepts notretained by postsecondary students (i.e.,

misconceptions of students enrolled in

entry-level gen chem). After identication,

the approach evolves to identifying the most

commonly chosen wrong answers of the

most commonly missed questions on the CA

Dx and attempting to give supporting expla-

nations for these persistent misconceptions

that directly relate to their prior chemistry

content knowledge.

MethodThe Students

The students involved in this study

have been admitted to one of the top four

largest universities in Texas. Students en-

rolled in gen chem I are mostly science

majors as the title of the course implies, but

some are engineering majors and a few oth-

ers (e.g., education and psychology majors)

are enrolled. Data from the CA Dx were usedto assess the prior chemistry content knowl-

edge of the 286 students who gave IRB con-

sent. Responses of these students were cho-

sen based on their enrollment in the course

during one of three consecutive semesters.

All of these courses were sections of gen

chem I during the long-term semesters (i.e.,

no summer sessions were included).

The Test

The means (standard deviations) forthe students who participated in this study

are listed in Table 1. These means are

slightly below what was reported above for

the entire sample. In general, fall-semester

students (n = 1111) available for study out-

perform the spring students (n = 527) by

1.70 points of the 44 total points on the CA

Dx instrument. The general conscience for




Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)Notable High School Chemistry Concepts (contd.)


20/51


Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)

this discrepancy is that the spring students

usually do not have the required math-

ematics (i.e., successful completion of col-

lege algebra) or have a negative perception

to studying chemistry, which has delayedthem from beginning the required courses

for their respective science and engineering

degrees. In this particular sample (n = 286),

there was no signicant difference in the CA

Dx means. The item analysis results of these

tests were combined to determine the top

ve missed questions on the CA Dx exam

and the most common incorrect answers for

these questions in order to examine miscon-

ceptions held by entering gen chem I stu-

dents.

able 1. Student Averages on the ACSCaliornia Diagnostic Exam

N CA Dx Mean

(SD)

Semester 1 101 18.23 (6.00)

Semester 2 43 18.40 (6.60)

Semester 3 135 18.39 (6.35)

Combined 286 18.33 (6.26)

This test is given to students enrolled

at the beginning of the semester as a pre-

test to assess prior content knowledge. The

students are told that the results of this test

would not impact their course grade. The in-

structions on the test indicate that only one

answer choice is correct and the nal score

is based on the number of correct respons-

es. Access to a periodic table of the elementsand table of abbreviations/symbols are

available as part of the CA Dx exam; the use

of a non-programmable calculator is permit-

ted.

Data Analysis

The responses provided by each stu-

dent were entered into a Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet to determine the number of

responses for each answer choice on each

question. The number of responses was

compiled as indicated by the number of the

most commonly chosen wrong answers and

the number of correct responses. The z scorevalue was calculated for the most commonly

chosen wrong answer responses and the

correct responses. The occurrences of the

most commonly chosen wrong answer choice

and the correct answer choice were tested

to determine if statistically signicant differ-

ence existed at the 95% level of signicance.

The z critical value for this sample size for a

two tailed hypothesis test with an alpha of

0.05 was +/- 1.96.

The common wrong answers with pos-

itive z scores above +1.96 were considered

choices that were chosen more frequently

than they would have if all answers were

chosen randomly. An interpretation of this

situation is that many students thought that

these were the correct answers in addition

to the random guesses. The correctly chosen

answers with negative z scores below -1.96

were considered choices that were chosenstatistically less often than they should have

been, based on a 25% chance at being cho-

sen at random (i.e., each of the 44 questions

has 4 possible choices). An interpretation of

these results is that there was another an-

swer choice that was a successful distractor

indicative of a misconception.

The 44 questions were ranked from

most correct to least correct for the ve

questions that produced a negative z scorebelow -1.96 for the number of correct re-

sponses along with a positive z score above

+1.96 for the most commonly chosen wrong

answer (see Table 2). The ve questions in

which the correct answers produced nega-

tive z values < -1.96 were the top ve most

missed questions, and the most commonly

chosen wrong answer showed positive z



21/51






scores > +1.96. The calculated z values of these ve questions indicated that students

chose the most common wrong answers more than randomly predicted and the correct an-

swers less than randomly predicted. These results are most likely due to misconceptions or

wrong concepts that students held at the time of the test.

able 2. Most Common Misconceptions on the CA Dx Exam (n = 286)

Most Missed Question Number

(least to greatest): Topic

z

Wrong

z

Correct

Most Common

Wrong Response

Correct Response

19: Bond Polarity 5.12 -2.94 109 50

34: Signicant Figures 16.18 -2.94 190 50

24: Lewis Dot Structures 15.64 -3.89 186 43

2: Nomenclature 16.73 -4.57 194 38

44: Algebraic relationships in

gas laws

6.62 -5.67 120 30

Results

The fth most commonly missed question ranked in the top 5 most missed questions

for each administration of the test. This question has a z value of 5.12 for the most popu-

lar wrong answer and a z value for the correct answer of -2.94. In other words, 109/286

or 39.1% of the students tested chose the same wrong answer. This question asked the

student to choose the bond with the highest polarity from a list of bonds. The most com-

monly chosen wrong answer was a pure covalent nonpolar bond, the exact opposite of what

the question was asking. Fifty-three students may not have seen the more electronegative

element on the periodic table. Sixty-nine students chose the least polar bond of the polar

bonds given. Five students left this question blank and only 50 chose the correct answer.It appears that these students do not know the denition of a polar bond or how elements

differ in electronegativity. This concept corresponds to TEKS Chemistry 5C, which states

that students are expected to use the periodic table to identify and explain periodic trends,

including atomic and ionic radii, electronegativity, and ionization energy (Texas Adminis-

trative Code, 2009a). Students should be able to determine if a molecule is polar, accord-

ing to TCCRS (THECB and TEA, 2008).

The fourth most commonly missed question had the second largest z value for

the commonly chosen wrong answer out of all of the questions at 16.18. In other words

190/286 or 68.1% of the students tested chose the same wrong answer. The z score for the

students that chose the correct answer was -2.94. The results of this most commonly cho-

sen wrong answer is indicative that the concept tested is either a common misconception or

concept that failed to be retained. This question asked about a laboratory technique using

a balance, and reported the measurement of the weighed container with and without the

mass using different numbers of signicant gures. One hundred ninety students chose the

answer that indicated an understanding of the procedure, but disregarded the add/sub-

tract rule of using signicant gures when reporting answers. Thirty-nine students chose

the distractor that failed to take into account the combined mass of the container and



22/51




object, and only gave the containers mass.

Three students chose the other distractor

and four left this question blank.

The results of this question show thatstudents are not aware of signicant gure

rules at the time of the test. According to

Benchmarks for Science Literacy: Project

2061, Students by the end of the 8th grade

should know that calculations (as on calcu-

lators) can give more digits than make sense

or are useful and decide what degree

of precision is adequate and round off the

result of calculator operations to enough

signicant gures to reasonably reect thoseof the inputs (American Association for the

Advancement of Science, 1993). This also

corresponds with TEKS Chemistry 2F, which

states that students are expected to collect

data and make measurements with accuracy

and precision, and 2G express and ma-

nipulate chemical quantities using scientic

conventions and mathematical procedures,

including dimensional analysis, scientic

notation, and signicant gures (Texas

Administrative Code, 2009a). Signicantgures are listed in the TCCRS under the

Geometry standards and under the Founda-

tion Skills: Scientic Applications of Math-

ematics section of the Science standards

(THECB and TEA, 2008) and will suppos-

edly be stressed on the upcoming Chemistry

STAAR exam.

The third most missed question with

the third most commonly chosen wrong

answer had a z value of 15.64. The correct

response had a z value of -3.89. The most

commonly chosen wrong answer for this

question was in the top 5 most commonly

chosen wrong answers for each adminis-

tration of the test and produced a most

common wrong answer rate of 186/286 or

66.7%. This concept is another concept that

needs to be looked at more closely in order

to improve the quality of chemistry instruc-

tion based on these z values. This question

tested the understanding of Lewis dot struc-

tures. The most commonly chosen wrong

answer misinterpreted the dots on the dia-gram as the atomic number, as opposed to

the number of valence electrons.

This question involves knowledge of

the structure of an element, specically the

Lewis dots, which represent valence elec-

trons. This knowledge corresponds to TEKS

Chemistry 6E, which states that the student

is expected to express the arrangement of

electrons in atoms through electron congu-rations and Lewis valence electron dot struc-

tures (Texas Administrative Code, 2009a).

The TCCRS state that students should be

able to draw Lewis dot structures for simple

molecules (THECB and TEA, 2008).

The American Association for the Ad-

vancement of Science states, By the end of

the 12th grade, students should know that

atoms are made of a positive nucleus sur-

rounded by negative electrons. An atomselectron conguration, particularly the out-

ermost electrons, determines how the atom

can interact with other atoms. Atoms form

bonds to other atoms by transferring or

sharing electrons (American Association for

the Advancement of Science, 1993).

Under the National Science Education Stan-

dards by the National Research Council

(1996) students in grades 9-12 in physical

science are to master the following related

concepts:

Atoms interact with one another by

transferring or sharing electrons that are

furthest from the nucleus. These outer

electrons govern the chemical properties



23/51



of the element.

An element is composed of a single type

of atom. When elements are listed in

order according to the number of protons

(called the atomic number), repeating

patterns of physical and chemical prop-

erties identify families of elements with

similar properties. This Periodic Table is

a consequence of the repeating pattern of

outermost electrons and their permitted

energies. (pp. 178-179)

The second most commonly missed

concept regarded formula writing for ionic

compounds. The most commonly chosenwrong answer for this question used the

symbols for the ions in the compound, but

disregarded the impact of the charges of the

individual ions to determine the subscripts.

This response had a z score of 16.73 with

194/286 or 69.5% of the students choos-

ing this response. The answer choice that

involved using the charge of the cation to

determine the subscript of the anion without

using the charge of the anion was chosen by

29 students. Seventeen students chose theanswer in which the charge of the ion was

used as the subscript for that ion and eight

failed to respond.

The expectation of writing a chemical

formula is also expressed in the TEKS. This

concept corresponds with TEK 7B, which

states that students should be able to write

the chemical formulas of common polyatom-

ic ions, ionic compounds containing main

group or transition metals, covalent com-

pounds, acids, and bases (Texas Adminis-

trative Code, 2009a). According to Bench-

marks for Science Literacy: Project 2061,

students should know that atoms combine

with one another in distinct patterns (Ameri-

can Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1993). Under the National Science

Education Standards by the National Re-

search Council (1996) students in grades

9-12 in physical science are to master the

following related concepts:

Bonds between atoms are created when electrons arepaired up by being transerred or shared. A substancecomposed o a single kind o atom is called an elementTe atoms may be bonded together into molecules orcrystalline solids. A compound is ormed when two or

more kinds o atoms bind together chemically. (p. 179)

The question that was missed the

most overall was also either the most or

second most commonly missed questions for

each administration of the test. This ques-tion had the lowest z score for the correct

answer of all of the items included on the

test. For this question, 120/286 or 43.0% of

the students tested selected the same wrong

answer. The z score for the correct answer

was -5.67, with the z score for the most

commonly chosen distractor being 6.62.

The wrong answer for this question was the

eighth most commonly chosen wrong answer

overall. The question asked for students toconsider a formula and answer a conceptual

question regarding how a relationship would

change in light of maintaining a constant, if

two variables were changed (i.e., increasing

one by a factor of X and decreasing another

by a factor of Y). In order to get this incor-

rect answer, the students failed to take into

account that the direction of change in the

numerator increased and the direction of

change in the denominator decreased along

with the fact that a constant must be main-tained. The second most common incorrect

answer (i.e., 73 responses) reported the cor-

rect overall direction of change but did not

take into account that the denominators

variable was decreasing and needed to be

compensated for by increasing the numera-

tor by that factor. The answer choice for

the third most common wrong answer (i.e.,



24/51



46 responses) had the correct magnitude

of change but opposite direction indicating

they may have understood the magnitude

of change but not the concept of a constant.

This question was left blank by 17 students

and answered correctly by only 30 students

(just over 12% of the student responses

evaluated).

This question may have thrown stu-

dents off because it is a question concern-

ing gas laws without any reference to gases,

corresponding to TEKS Chemistry 9A, which

states that the student is expected to de-

scribe and calculate the relations betweenvolume, pressure, number of moles, and

temperature for an ideal gas as described

by Boyles law, Charles law, Avogadros law,

Daltons law of partial pressure, and the

ideal gas law (Texas Administrative Code,

2009a). The TCCRS state that students

should be able to solve for gas temperature,

pressure, or volume using algebraic symbols

and formulae (THECB and TEA, 2008). This

question was the last question on the exam

and mathematically the most challenging,since changes in different directions of mul-

tiple variables were involved. However, prior

chemistry knowledge was not important to

nding the answer to this questiononly

good algebraic skills! This question had the

third most responses that were left blank

out of all of the questions further supporting

how important algebraic skills are to success

in general chemistry and the importance of

teaching gas laws from a conceptual stand-point.

DiscussionPossible Sources of Error

One cannot determine the intentions

of the students beyond their responses on

the answer sheet and so all of the answer

sheets that had any responses on them

counted toward these results. It is possible

that students may not have taken the test

seriously having the knowledge that the re-

sults of this test would not affect their grade

in the course, but most students do take

this exam seriously since it is usually the

rst test they ever taken in college and they

desire to get off to a good start.

Explanation of Findings

Students entering gen chem I are ex-

pected to be procient on the topics tested

on the CA Dx upon entry into the course.

There are a few explanations as for why

these students had not mastered theseconcepts before entering this course. The

concepts targeted in these results were bond

polarity, signicant gures in laboratory

procedures, Lewis dot structures, nomen-

clature and algebraic relationships in gas

laws. All of these concepts are indicated as

college readiness standards as of fall 2010

(THECB and TEA, 2008). At the time of

this study several of these concepts have

not been tested on the TAKS test because

the TAKS test was designed to ask chemis-try questions based on the more basic IPC

course. Since current graduation plans still

allow for IPC to count as a year of science,

this provides a loophole that allows students

to be able to graduate high school without a

full year of chemistry (Texas Administrative

Code, 2010). In light of the recent changes

to the state standards, high school teachers

are now making changes to their course cur-

ricula that reect the new expectations. Itmay also be possible that the revisions that

have been made to support the new stan-

dards need more work in order to be effec-

tively received by students.

Conclusions and Suggestions

Students are not retaining or lack

knowledge of general chemistry concepts



25/51



that are expected of a student entering gen chem I, such as polarity, signicant gures,

periodicity, naming and algebraic manipulations. Students are making careless errors such

as not paying attention to the denition of a constant or failing to apply skills that should

have been acquired before entering college, such as manipulation of fractions and decimals

(Texas Education Code, 2006) and proportional reasoning (Texas Education Code, 2009b).

The next generation of the TEKS assessment is the STAAR program which, according

to the House Bill 3 Transition Plan, is designed to increase the rigor of course assessment

so that students will know when they meet a higher level of academic knowledge and skills

needed to meet the challenges of the 21st century (Texas Education Agency, 2010a). How-

ever since the STAAR results on individual subject tests can be combined to determine a

students eligibility for graduation, this still leaves room for vital chemistry concepts to fall

through the cracks. These topics (bonding, signicant gures, Lewis dot structures, nomen-

clature, and gas laws) are basic concepts that a student should not leave high school chem-

istry without. Our data also indicate that mastery of mathematical understanding is veryimportant to student success even on a conceptual chemistry exam.

Finally, it is important that chemistry instructors of all levels make chemistry rel-

evant to their students. The relevance of chemistry in everyday life helps students identify

and grasp some concepts more readily than others. Students should therefore be given the

opportunity to practice these concepts and delved more in depth into more complex con-

cepts at different cognitive levels so that they are aware of what is expected of them now

and in the future. At the very least, assessments, assignments, and lectures should be

designed to complement each other and provide students with the foundational knowledge

they need to excel in gen chem I.

Students need to meet educators half way, but educators need to be prepared to

guide their students through possible roadblocks that may thwart their success in the

courses. The material presented in the high school classroom needs to provide the student

with a basis to continue their education whether it is at a postsecondary institution, career,

or independent study beyond the course. The guidelines set up for high school teachers to

follow need to adequately reect the purpose of these courses. This will aid in maintain-

ing the students academic self-image, assuming that they are motivated to succeed in the

course.



26/51


References

American Association or the Advancement o Science. (1993). Benchmarks or science literacy: project 2061. New York:Oxord University Press.

American Chemical Society Division o Chemical Education. (2009). Examinations Institute. Retrieved August 1, 2011,rom Ordering Inormation: http://chemexams.chem.iastate.edu/order/index.cm

Bunce, D., & Hutchinson, K. J. (1998). Te use o the GAL (Group Assessment o Logical Tinking) as a predictor oacademic success in college chemistry. Journal o Chemical Education, 70(3), 183-187. doi: 10.1021/ed070p183

House, J. D. (1995). Noncognitive predictors o achievement in introductory college chemistry. Research in HigherEducation, 36(4), 473-490 . doi: 10.1007/BF02207907

Karpp, E. (1995). Validating the Caliornia Chemistry Diagnostic est or local use (Paths to success, Volume III).Glendale Community Coll., CA: Planning and Research Oce.

Manrique, C. (2011). Efects o using logic and spatial cybergames to improve student success rates in lower-division

chemistry courses. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University o North exas, Denton, X.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Russell, A. A. (1994). A rationally designed general chemistry diagnostic test. Journal o Chemical Education, 71(4), 314.doi: 10.1021/ed071p314

Santa Monica College. (2007). Chemistry challenge exam. Retrieved April 22, 2011, rom Santa Monica College:http://www.smc.edu/apps/pub.asp?Q=58

Shell, D. F., Brooks, D. W., rainin, G., Wilson, K. M., Kaufman, D. F., & Herr, L. M. (2010). Te Unied LearningModel: How motivational cognitive, and neurobiological sciences inorm the best teaching practices (Vol. 1). New

York, NY: Spring Science + Business Media.

exas Administrative Code. (2006, August 1). 19 AC Chapter 111, exas Essential Knowledge and Skills orMathematics Subchapter A Elementary School. Retrieved September 29, 2011, rom exas Administrative CodeIndex: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter111/ ch111b.html

Reerences (contd.)

exas Administrative Code. (2009a, August 4). 19 AC Chapter 112, exas Essential Knowledge and Skills or ScienceSubchapter C High School. Retrieved April 22, 2011, rom:


Anna George is currently pursuing a PhD in Chemistry with the emphasis in Chemical Education at theUniversity o North Texas. She has taught chemistry in the north Texas area or the past ve years at the highschool and university levels..

Dr. Mason is an Associate Proessor o Chemistry at the University o North Texas. She received her BA inZoology rom UT, Austin, holds an MS in Zoology rom Texas A&M, Commerce, and earned her PhD inScience Education rom UT, Austin. Her research interest lies in how reshman chemistry students learn tolearn chemistry including the eectiveness o electronic homework systems. She is on the Board o Trustees orthe Fort Worth Regional Science and Engineering Fair, a Regional Director o the Associated ChemistryTeachers o Texas, and is a member o the 2011 Class o ACS Fellows.


27/51


http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter112/ch112c.html

exas Administrative Code. (2009b, February 23). 19 AC Chapter 111, exas Essential Knowledge and Skills orMathematics Subchapter B Middle School. Retrieved September 29, 2011, rom:

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter112/ch111b.html

exas Administrative Code. (2010, August 23). 19 AC Chapter 74, Subchapter F. Retrieved April 22, 2011, rom exasAdministrative Code Index: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter074/ch074.html

exas Education Agency. (2010a). House Bill 3 transition plan. Austin: exas Education Agency. Retrieved April 22, 2011,rom exas Education Agency: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/hb3plan/

exas Education Agency. (2010b, February 23). exas College and Career Readiness Standards more comprehensive thannational standards. exas Education Agency News. Retrieved April 3, 2011, rom exas Education Agency:http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=8061

exas Education Agency and Pearson. (2009). echnical digest rom academic school year 2007-2008. Austin, X: \exas Education Agency. Retrieved April 22, 2011, rom exas Education Agency:http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=4326&menu_id3=793

exas Education Agency, Pearson Educational Measurement, Harcourt Educational Measurement, and BEA Inc. (2004).exas student assessment program technical digest or the academic year 2002-2003. Austin: exas EducationAgency.

exas Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) and exas Education Agency (EA). (2008). exas college andcareer readiness standards. Austin, X: exas Education Agency.

University o Caliornia, Riverside. (2010, June). 2010-2011 University o Caliornia, Riverside general catalog. RetrievedApril 22, 2011, rom UCR Catalog: http://catalog.ucr.edu/catalog.html

University o Nevada, Las Vegas. (n.d.). Chem 121 placement exam. Retrieved April 22, 2011, rom UNLV Department oChemistry: http://sciences.unlv.edu/Chemistry/policy.htm

University o North exas. (2010, July 1). 2010-2011 Undergraduate catalog. Retrieved April 22, 2011, rom University oNorth exas: http://www.unt.edu/catalog/undergrad/index.htm

Winthrop University. (n.d.). Chem 105 placement. Retrieved April 22, 2011, rom Winthrop University:http://chem.winthrop.edu/chem105_placement.htm

Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: Te role o motivation and cognition in the learning ocollege chemistry. International Journal o Science Education, 25(9), 10811094. doi:10.1080/0950069032000052207



28/51


WARDS PROUDLY SUPPORTS STAT MEMBERS

STAT MEMBERS

Wards in-house experts

will be in the booth foryour questions, suggestions,

and ideas

Visit our booth for: Hands-on exploration of new activities Cutting-edge technology for your classroom Chance to win valuable prizes

P: 800-962-2660 | F: 800-635-8439

wardsci.com/APScience

i

Enable Your District to Meet Science TEKS and Prepare Your Students for STAAR and EOC Tests!CPO Science and Delta Education offer both Instructional Materials and Supplemental Instructional Materials

SEE SAMPLE LESSON PAGES AT

www.cpo.com/home/2/Your State/TX.aspx

Online Solution or New and Expanded

Science TEKS or Grades 35 rom

Delta Education

CPO Science oers a Program or Grades 68 that prepares

students or the 8th grade assessment. This program includes

the new TEKS and flls in the gaps so students learn everything

they need to know.

CPO Science also offers

Foundations of Physics,

Second Edition program

for Grades 1012

Fo moe infomation:

Northern TexasVErNE ISbELL

800-338-5270 [email protected]

Fo moe infomation:

SALLy DuDLEy

[email protected]

Inside SalesJANIcE MArcuS

800-338-5270 [email protected]

Southern TexasJOAN LyLES

800-338-5270 x188

[email protected]

30 DAy ONLINE PrEVIEw

www.neworexpandedteks.schoolspecialty.com

www.SchoolSpecialtyScience.com

i


29/51


Using a Force Meter to Measure an Objects Mass:A Potential Misconception

by Andrzej Sokolowski

In the process of strengthening highschool physics program, most of the em-

phasis is placed on the curriculum content

(Texas TEKS for Physics, 2011). Physicalinstruments used by students for data gath-

ering seem to be a secondary concern in this

process. A discussion that follows is to sig-

nal that verication of these instruments for

adherence with principles of physics might

also be needed to provide students with a

sound physics inquiry.

Commonly used single spring force

meters are dually calibrated; they measure

the amount of objects substance expressed

in kilograms (or grams), and simultaneously

they can measure the objects weight (or

force) expressed in newtons.

Fig.1. Force meters calibrated in grams and newtons.Sourcewww.sargentwelch.com

Although they are convenient to use

and provide relatively accurate data for

classroom analysis, utilizing them to mea-

sure objects weight and mass might createin students minds a misconception that

objects mass depends on the intensity of

gravitational eld. The goal of the paper is

show physics colleagues the weakness of

such designed force meter and consequently

alert students to prevent the likelihood of

the misconception from occurring. Follow-

ing is a problem whose solution leads to the

contradictory data. I conduct the thought

experiment with my advanced physics stu-

dents. Being placed in the roles of assessorsof the measuring instruments, they also

learn that simplications might sometimes

lead to faulty designs.

Is mass dependent on gravity?The answer to this question is appar-

ent; mass is independent from intensity of

gravitational eld. Mixed responses to this

question can be generated when a dual

spring scale is used to verify the answer.After posing this question to students, I

conduct the following thought experiment.

Students are given objects (for example 100

g density blocks) and a dual force meter (see

Fig. 1).

I formulate the following problem:

Suppose we want to measure the objects

weight and its mass on the Earth and on the

Moon using the same spring force meter.

What readings will this force meter show onthe Earth and on the Moon?

Students will nd the readings of the

objects weight and mass on the Earth eas-

ily. They will also correctly hypothesize the

objects weight on the Moon referring the

Moons intensity of gravitational eld to be

about 1.6 N/kg (Serway, 2005). Estimating

the measurements of the mass using the

same force meter on the Moon will puzzle

them. They will predict that a lower gravi-

tational eld on the Moon will produce a

shorter stretch of the spring of the force me-

ter. Since simultaneously the same spring

measures objects mass, the amount of the

mass of the object will show to be less than

that on the Earth! They arrive at a contra-


30/51


Using a Force Meter(contd.)

diction; they realize that mass should not

change, however using the force meter they

conclude that mass depends on the gravita-

tional eld. This serious misconception con-

fusing the concept of mass and weight mighthave a negative impact on students further

studies of dynamics.

The table 1 below shows the expected

readings. The mass of 100g will show ac-

cording to the thought process, as mass of

16 g on the Moon which is not correct. The

amount of substance is still 100g and disre-

garding the intensity of gravitational eld.

Mass Force of

Gravity

Measurements

on the Earth

100.0g 0.981N

Measurements

predicted by

using a dual

force meter on

the Moon

16.0g 0.160N

able1. Force meter readings on the Earth andpredicted readings on the Moon.

We conclude that the dual force meter

has certain limitations that we need to be

aware of. An afterward discussion can focus

on identifying conditions when the device

shows correct readings. We conclude that

the force meter measures properly objects

mass and weight under the condition that

it is calibrated at the same place where it is

used.

As a verication of different spring

stretches due to gravity, a physics simula-

tion Masses and springs can be utilized. The

simulation is created by PhET Interactive

Simulations Project at Colorado University

and it can be found at:

http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/mass-spring-lab/mass-spring-lab_en.html.

Fig. 2. Screen shots o simulation showing diferentstretches o a s

november 11 tst_3

Documents