cooperative learning and visual organisers: effects on solving mole problems in high school...

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 02 October 2014, At: 12:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia Pacific Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

Cooperative Learning and VisualOrganisers: Effects on Solving MoleProblems in High School ChemistryKatherine Foley & Angela O'DonnellPublished online: 05 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Katherine Foley & Angela O'Donnell (2002) Cooperative Learning and VisualOrganisers: Effects on Solving Mole Problems in High School Chemistry, Asia Pacific Journal of Education,22:1, 38-50, DOI: 10.1080/0218879020220105

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0218879020220105

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0218879020220105

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0218879020220105

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Cooperative Learning and Visual Organisers:Effects on Solving Mole Problems in High

School Chemistry

Katherine Foley and Angela O'Donnell

Abstract

Eighty-seven high school students participated in the study in one of four conditions:

1. Visual Organiser/Cooperative Learning2. Cooperative Learning only3. Visual Organiser only4. Teacher-Directed

Students were taught how to use mole maps to assist them in solving single-quantity and multiple-quantity mole problems. A mole problem involves converting quantities of chemicals to moles, a unitof measurement used in Chemistry. Students took tests immediately after instruction and then tookmid-term examinations that included mole problems. Repeated measures analyses with post-instructiontest scores and the mid-term scores for single and multiple-quantity mole problems showed thatstudent performance was significantly better immediately after instruction for both kinds of problems.Students who used visual organisers and cooperative learning outperformed students who experiencedteacher-directed instruction on single-quantity mole problems and also on the immediate post-instruction test of multiple-quantity mole problems. Cooperative learning resulted in less decay inperformance over time.

Effects on Solving Mole Problems in High School Chemistry

Efforts at reform of Science education have resulted in numerous reports advocating improvements ininstruction. Examples include the report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science(1989) and that of the National Research Council (1996) that together call for a Science education that isaccessible to all and that meets appropriate standards. One problematic area in Science education is thecurrent teaching strategies in the physical sciences in general and Chemistry in particular. Chemistry is toooften viewed as a highly authoritarian field of endeavour (Brickhouse, Carter, & Scantlebury, 1990).Teachers are accustomed to teaching students interested in pursuing a career in the sciences and oftenexperience difficulty in teaching students who do not have such interests. The predominant method ofteaching remains that of the lecture (Johnstone, 1993). Despite the continued efforts at reform, instructionin Chemistry has changed little and a student's description of a university Chemistry class in 1790 atDickinson College can be recognised by a student in 2001 at any university or high school. In describinghis professor's teaching style, Matthew Brown noted:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Cooperative Learning and Visual Organisers: Effects on Solving Mole Problems in High School Chemistry 39

His plan of instruction in college was by lecture, which the classes were expected to write in full.He talked slowly so the students could capture every word in their notebooks. The material wasthen to be memorised for the examination (Schearer, 1988, p. 134).

When only lectures are used in Chemistry classes, students' motivation for understanding concepts isundermined (Ward & Bodner, 1993; Zoller, 1993). A lecture is typically a one-way communication (Black,1993) without the opportunity for active processing of quickly presented information. Lectures may givean incorrect view of Chemistry as the amassing of facts and raise the frustration level of students in thescience class (Tobias, 1987). Students do not learn effectively when passive (Ross & Fulton, 1994).Unfortunately, chalk remains the principal classroom technology for Chemistry education (Brooks, 1993).Hagen (2000) observed that grades of D, F, or withdrawal from an Organic Chemistry course in college roseto almost 50% in his college, providing further evidence that many students do not believe they can succeedin the typical college Chemistry class. The failure to retain students in Science classes has seriousrepercussions for society.

Chemistry is a complex discipline. Multiple skills are needed to master course content. The study ofChemistry includes the investigation of how changes occur, when and why they occur and how people canmake use of the changes to improve life. To be successful, a student must be competent in Mathematics,problem-solving, conceptualisation, the use of theories and the language of Chemistry (VerBeek & Louters,1991).

Chemistry instruction often revolves around problem-solving. Problem-solving is cognitively demand-ing, requiring the manipulation of prior knowledge and, at times, the adaptation and changing of existingknowledge during the actual process of solving the problem (Hayes, 1989). The most common strategyused to solve a problem is:

(a) represent the problem(b) determine the goal state or solution(c) plan or realise the best approach to go from the initial state to the answer(d) carry out the planned approach(e) use feedback to change plans if needed (Hayes, 1989). In problem-solving, a student's short-term

memory may become quickly overloaded with facts, constraints of the problem, concepts to apply andstrategies to use (Johnstone, 1993). Common problems may require the use of more than one algorithmto arrive at a correct solution. Overload of short-term memory is possible and may prevent thecompletion of the solution process.

Mole problems were the chemical problems selected for this study because of their centrality inChemistry and because students experience great difficulty with them (Gabel & Sherwood, 1983,1984). Anexample of a mole problem is as follows:

A student was given 11.8 grams of magnesium metal and told to react the metal with dilute hydro-chloric acid. Calculate the volume of hydrogen gas that could be collected at standard temperature andpressure.

To solve this problem, a student must recognise it as a multiple-quantity mole problem. The informa-tion in the problem specifies a given amount of one material (magnesium metal) and the student is askedto provide the volume of another chemical substance that is formed (hydrogen gas). Solving this problemrequires multiple steps and complex conversions of quantities to the standard unit of measurement inChemistry, the mole.

Both the teaching strategy typically used in Chemistry instruction (lecture) and the content of Chem-istry (e.g. solving mole problems) can place tremendous burdens on students' short-term memory. Asolution to the problem of overloading short-term memory is to help students build strategies that decreasedemand on working memory. Two strategies were used in the present study to reduce the burden onstudents' memory and to increase the meaningfulness of the learning experience.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

40 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, VOL. 22, NO. 1, 2002, pp. 38-50

Strategies

Cooperative Learning

The use of cooperative learning during Chemistry can make learning more meaningful and engage studentsmore actively than the typical lecture class. Cooperative learning involves a non-competitive environmentin which students perceive their goals as interdependent and in which they are motivated to assist oneanother's learning because of this interdependence (Sharan & Shaulov, 1990). Empirical support for thepositive benefits of cooperative learning is strong (see Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Slavin, 1996 for reviews).Females, in particular, prefer a cooperative learning approach where students work together, explaining andhelping each other solve problems (AAUW, 1992; Brickhouse et al., 1990).

Although a variety of theories exist to explain why cooperative learning is beneficial (O'Donnell,2001, O'Donnell & O'Kelly, 1994), the important role of student discourse is recognised in all of them.Strategies are reevaluated, ideas are reorganised and knowledge is restructured when students have toexplain or defend their problem-solving strategies (Roth, 1994; Webb, 1991; Webb, Troper, & Fall, 1995).The rethinking and reorganising of information may lead to a greater understanding of the material by thestudent. When preparing to teach or to explain material to someone else, the explainer may have toreorganise the material (Bodner, 1987; Roth, 1994; Webb, 1991). The restructuring of the material mayincrease the student's understanding or illustrate the gaps in his/her knowledge. Low average and middleaverage students working in cooperative grouping in Science classes had significant increases in achieve-ment (Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Scantlebury & Kahle, 1993).

Cooperative learning has been successfully used in a variety of domains, including Chemistry. In ameta-analysis of 15 research studies on cooperative learning in high school and college Chemistry classes,Bowen (2000) reported that courses using cooperative learning resulted in higher achievement (averageeffect size of .37) when compared to traditionally taught classes. Cooperative learning strategies have alsobeen shown to increase student retention in Organic Chemistry (Hagen, 2000), thus making certain careerchoices more possible for more students.

In this study, students are expected to benefit from working with their peers on solving mole problems.Solving these problems requires understanding of the various chemicals and reactants and also involvesprocedural knowledge for executing the steps involved in the multiple conversions from one quantity toanother. Explanations that students may provide one another are expected to assist students master theconceptual knowledge while the prompting or direction provided by peers may assist with the proceduralknowledge needed.

The type of cooperative learning used in this study involves principles drawn from a variety ofcooperative learning techniques. Students were encouraged to be pro-social (drawing on the work ofJohnson & Johnson, 1989) and help one another. Elements of individual accountability, positive interde-pendence, face-to-face interaction and reward were included. Students were told they would receive bonuspoints on the exams if the members of their groups were successful. No instructions for ways to assistpartners were provided.

Visual Organisers

Another strategy for reducing memory load is the use of visual organisers. Visual organisers include suchrepresentations as concept maps, knowledge maps, graphic organisers and semantic webs. Such represen-tations provide an external prop to students' learning by providing a graphical representation of conceptsand the relationships among them. Such organisers are thought to be useful as they provide spatial/visualprompts to students' memory for the relationships among concepts. Dual coding theory (Paivio, 1990)suggests that visual and verbal processing systems are separate and when instructional materials arepresented in both verbal and visual ways, learning is enhanced. Kulhavy and his colleagues (e.g. Kulhavy,Stock, Verdi, Rittschof, & Savenye, 1993; Kulhavy, Stock, Woodward, & Haywood, 1993) proposed the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


conjoint retention model to explain why organised spatial displays improve students' ability to recall textfacts. The conjoint retention model, like dual coding theory, proposes that information can be stored aseither verbal or non-verbal memory codes and referential links between codes can be used to aid retrieval.A visual organiser can help students visualise the steps needed to solve a problem.

Avariety of spatial/visual organisers such as concept maps (Novak, 1990), knowledge maps (O'Donnell,Dansereau, & Hall, in press) and graphic organisers (Robinson, Katanya, DuBois, & Devaney, 1998) havebeen shown to be effective supports for learning. Flow charts are considered optimal devices for diagrammingprocedures or processes (Lambiotte, Dansereau, & Reynolds, 1989).

Research on the use of visual organisers during problem-solving indicates that students with a highlevel of mathematical anxiety perform better when instructed to use a more visual approach to problem-solving (Phillips, 1989). Expert problem solvers construct a representation of the problem to focus on thesolution process (Gabel & Samuel, 1986). Roth and Roychoudhury (1993) also noticed that the use ofconcept maps (visual organisers) resulted in reduced anxiety and higher achievement among students. Thecooperative use of concept maps has also been found to be effective (Okebukola, 1992; Osisoma, 1997).

The visual organiser used in this study was a mole map (see Figure 1) and was intended as an externalprop to support short-term memory during problem-solving. The map included the mole terms andmathematical procedures for converting units to moles with clear guides to where to begin and how toproceed. The visual organiser was intended to reduce the amount of information held in short-term memoryas students converted one chemical compound to the standard measurement unit in Chemistry (the mole).It was also expected to assist students in maintaining a focus on their goals in solving the problem.

Figure 1 A multiple-quantity mole map

Given:

Mass (grams) Volume (litres)

— \ •• \ "T

Atomic/f

goto

Molecular Mass \ 22.4

/Litres al STP/

Mole I

-fc- Periodic Tablegoto

i

Coeffienls

BalancedEquation

Mole

Ratio

X ; / X

— Atomic/Molecular Mass 22-4 Litres at STP

Find

Mass (grams) Volume (litres)

Atoms, MoleculesIons, Particles

/ •/ -r

6.02x1023

•Look"

"Give"

6.02 X1023

Atoms, Molecules,Ions, Particles

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


The present study examined whether the use of cooperative learning, the use of visual organisers, ortheir combination would influence student learning of how to solve single and multiple-quantity moleproblems. This segment of the curriculum is known to pose problems for students.

Method

Participants

Eighty-two students enrolled in a public high school in a suburban community participated. The townssending to the high school are primarily upper-middle class communities. A majority of the parents in thesecommunities are college-educated and professionally employed. The students were between 14 and 17 yearsof age, 55.2% males and the remaining 44.8% females. Four of the available 11 sections of Chemistryparticipated and were taught by four different teachers. The remaining seven sections were excludedbecause three of them were honours classes and a new and inexperienced teacher taught the remaining four.Of those who participated in the study, 67% percent were Caucasian, 30% percent were Asian and 3% wereclassified as others.

The teachers who participated were experienced teachers (12-31 years of experience) and were alsoexperienced in teaching Chemistry (5 to 31 years). Teachers volunteered to participate and selected the typeof instruction they preferred. All teachers had experience in implementing the strategy they selected. Onesection of Chemistry was assigned to each experimental condition. Concerns about this assignment strategyare addressed later in this article.

Materials

The three instructional units involved in the research project covered the factor-label method, single-quantity mole and multiple-quantity mole problems. The single-quantity mole problems involved conversionsbetween grams, litres, atoms and molecules with the same element or compound using the factor labelmethod, an algorithm used to solve chemical mole problems. Multiple-quantity mole problems involveusing the information concerning one element or compound and determining the amount in grams, litres,atoms, or molecules of another element or compound. They also involved the use of a balanced equationto determine the ratio between the given and the required substances.

Mole Map

The visual organiser or mole map was a flowchart (see Figure 1). It was designed to allow students topicture and follow the steps necessary to solve a mole problem. The information given in the problem waslocated at the top of the map, and the flow of information was from top to bottom. By following thedirectional arrows on the map, the conversion factor to change to moles could be found.

Procedures

The students and teachers were randomly assigned to their Chemistry classes by the assistant principal anddirector of guidance using a computerised programme for school scheduling. Teachers were also randomlyassigned to particular classes at the beginning of the school year. Each of four classes in the study wasassigned to one of the four experimental conditions:

1. Visual Organiser/Cooperative Learning2. Visual Organiser only3. Cooperative Learning only4. Teacher-Directed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


In the cooperative learning classes, students were assigned to four or five person, same-sex, heteroge-neous groups based on students' performance on the introductory unit in the course. All students had priorexperience in working together and had worked in cooperative groups during laboratory classes in additionto regular classroom sessions. In addition, other classes in the curriculum used cooperative learning.Students were directed to help one another to explain and solve problems, to ask group members if theyexperienced difficulty and to observe how other students solved problems. The teachers monitored groupsby walking around the room, assisting groups who were experiencing difficulties by modelling goodexplanations and checking for understanding. The teachers also made suggestions for how to increase groupparticipation. The groups remained together for the duration of the research project.

In the classes using the visual organiser, each student had a copy of both the single-quantity mole mapand the multiple-quantity mole map. A large mole map was posted on the bulletin board and was removedduring testing. The teachers in the visual organiser classes worked through three sample problems to assiststudents in the use of the visual organisers. Students were called on to locate the required quantities, todecide the next step by using the mole map, to read the Periodic table, and to assist in setting up andcancelling labels and solve the factor-label diagrams.

Students in the Visual Organiser/Cooperative Learning group were taught all three instructional unitsusing cooperative learning. The single-quantity mole and multiple-quantity mole units were taught usingvisual organisers, the single- and multiple-quantity mole maps and students worked in groups to solveproblems using the mole maps. In the Visual Organiser only groups, students worked individually withmole maps to solve problems. In the Cooperative Learning only group, students worked together to solveproblems and were directed to help one another. In the Teacher-Directed group, the teacher lectured on thecontent and the students took notes. Students completed worksheets as part of the classroom instruction andquestions were directed to the teacher.

All classes followed the same schedule in teaching the content. Students in all classes first learned thefactor-label method (5 days). The factor-label method is a powerful and versatile algorithm in Chemistry(Beichl, 1986; Cardulla, 1987; Desmarals, 1988). Students can practise simple problems with the factor-label algorithm and then expand the algorithm to more complicated problems. The cooperative groupsusing the factor-label worksheets together and worked on the assigned problems from the textbook. At theend of that unit, all students took a common test on factor-label problems. Two graders graded and correctedthe tests, returned to the students and the answers were discussed.

The classes then proceeded to the single-quantity mole problems (8 days). Students in the visualorganiser classes were introduced to the single-quantity mole map using the large mole map that was postedso that everyone in the class could see it. They were instructed in the use of the map for solving single-quantity mole problems. All four classes practised the single-quantity mole problems by completing thesingle-quantity mole worksheets and the assigned problems from the text. The students in the cooperativelearning groups worked together for the problem practice sessions. All students in the two visual organiserclasses used their mole maps. The students in the combined visual organiser and cooperative learning classworked in their assigned groups. The students in the teacher-directed or control class followed the teacher'sdirections in solving problems and completed the worksheets. All groups took the single-quantity moleproblem unit test. The tests were corrected by the two graders, returned to the students and discussed.

The same process was followed for the multiple-quantity mole problems (10 days) and at the end ofthe unit, students again took a common exam on multiple-quantity mole problems. Some weeks later, allparticipants took a mid-term test. The mid-term examination contained questions on the single-quantitymole and multiple-quantity mole unit. There were four multiple-choice questions and two free-responseproblems on both the single-quantity mole problems and the multiple-quantity mole problems.

At the conclusion of each test — the three unit tests and the mid-term — the students in each treatmentgroup were asked to write a reflection concerning their thinking as they solved problems on the test. Thepurpose of these reflections was to determine if the students in the experimental treatments used themethods appropriate to their condition when solving test problems. The reflections were anonymousalthough the experimental condition from which they were derived was recorded. Students practised

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

44 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, VOL 22, NO. 1, 2002, pp. 38-50

writing reflections on a graphing exercise prior to the initiation of the experiment. Models of goodreflections that included descriptions of how they solved the problems or what they used to remember themethod of approaching the problem.

Results

Scoring

Problems on the tests were scored by assigning points to each segment of the problem solution. The pointsearned on the individual sections were totalled for an overall score for each problem. The points awardedfor each problem were totalled for an overall composite score. The overall score on the test was convertedto the school-wide grading scale and ranged from an F = 0.0 (65 or lower) to A+= 4.4 (98 - 100).

The free-response questions on the mid-term were graded independently of the multiple-choicesection. There were three single-quantity and two multiple-quantity mole problems. Students were givenpartial credit for various steps involved in solving the problems. Separate scores were computed for thesolutions to the single-quantity and multiple-quantity mole problems. These were converted into a gradebased on the grading scale used in the school and previously described.

Preliminary Analyses

As there was only one teacher per treatment, initial analyses were conducted to ensure that the students inthe various classes did not differ in terms of mathematical ability and Chemistry achievement and that theteachers were not differentially effective. The solution of mole problems uses mathematical skills andreasoning. Since the mole unit is a mathematical unit, it was necessary to determine that the groups werestatistically equivalent in their mathematical ability. Data from the Mathematics portion of the PreliminaryScholastic Aptitude Test (PS AT) from the year before were analysed to verify that the scheduling proceduresat the school resulted in random distributions of mathematically able students in the various sections of theChemistry course. This analysis showed no significant differences across sections. Student performanceon the introductory unit in Chemistry (prior to the introduction of the experiment) was compared in the fourclassrooms using a one-way analysis of variance. There were no significant differences between classes.

To rule out differential teaching effectiveness as a possible interpretation of results, the performance ofteachers' students from the previous year on a common final Chemistry examination was examined. Thestudents whose scores were analysed had been taught by one of the four teachers involved in the study buthad taken Chemistry prior to the beginning of the study and had not been exposed to the treatment strategiesof the study. The Chemistry test used was the 1991 American Chemical Society (ACS) final examination.The raw scores (number of correct responses) on the American Chemical Society Test 1991 Version wererecorded. This test was a broad based, common, standardised Chemistry test. The American ChemicalSociety has national norms for performance. There were no significant differences in teacher effectivenessbased on the results of the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test and the American Chemical Society Test.

Analyses of Outcomes

A repeated-measures analyses of variance was conducted using the scores from the single-quantity moleproblems on the test given after instruction and the multiple-choice questions on the mid-term related tosingle-quantity moles (4 questions scored as correct or incorrect). The within-subject factor was time (post-instruction test, mid-term test) and the single between-subject factor was the experimental group. Descriptivestatistics for the four treatment groups can be found in Table 1. There was a significant effect for time, F(1, 78) = 61.0, p < .01, eta squared = .42. Students performed significantly better immediately afterinstruction than they did on the mid-term a few weeks later. There was also a significant effect for group,F (3,78) = 5.2, p < .05, eta squared = .16. Post-hoc analyses indicated that the Visual Organiser/Cooperative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Learning group differed significantly from the Teacher-Directed Group. No other between group comparisonswere statistically significant. The interaction of experimental group and time was not significant, F < 1.

Table 1Scores1 on Single-Quantity Mole Problems after Instruction and on the Mid-term

TEST SCORES

Post-Instruction Mid-term

Experimental Group Mean SD (n) Mean SD

Visual/Cooperative


Visual Organiser

Teacher-Directed

3.30

2.18

2.71

2.11

0.81 (21)

1.62(23)

0.99 (22)

1.57(21)

1.86

1.48

1.55

0.86

1.01

0.89

1.18

0.79

A second repeated-measures analysis was conducted on the scores for multiple-quantity mole problemson the test given after instruction and the multiple-choice questions on the mid-term related to multiple-quantity moles (4 questions). The within-subject factor was time (post-instruction test, mid-term test) andthe single between-subject factor was the experimental group. Descriptive statistics for the four treatmentgroups can be found in Table 2. The effect of time was significant, F (1, 78) = 19.02 ,g < .01, eta squared= .19. Students performed significantly better immediately after instruction than they did on a subsequentmid-term. The interaction of group and time was also significant, F (3, 78) = 3.79, £ < .05, eta squared =.12. The Visual Organiser/Cooperative Learning group differed significantly from the Teacher-Directedgroup on the test immediately after instruction but not on the midterm. The between-subject effect of groupwas also statistically significant, F (3, 83) = 3.27, g < .05, eta squared = .11. The Teacher-Directed groupperformed significantly worse than the Visual Organiser/ Cooperative group. No other between-groupcomparisons were significant.

Table 2Scores2 on Multiple-Quantity Mole Problems after Instruction and on the Mid-term

Experimental Group

Visual/Cooperative


Visual Organiser

Teacher-Directed

TEST

Post-Instruction

Mean

3.73

2.76

3.53

2.29

SD(n)

0.78 (21)

1.38(23)

1.04(22)

1.51 (21)

SCORES

Mean

2.76

2.65

2.31

2.09

Mid-term

SD

1.26

1.50

1.29

1.48

1 Scores are converted to the grading scale used in the high school and ranged.from an F = 0.0 (65 or lower) toA+= 4.4 (98-100).2 Scores are converted to the grading scale used in the high school and ranged from an F = 0.0 (65 or lower) toA+= 4.4 (98-100).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Scores on the free-response problems from the mid-term were also analysed. Responses to single-quantity mole problems and multiple-quantity mole problems were analysed separately in two one-wayanalyses of variance (ANOVA) with experimental group as the single between-subject factor (see Table 3for descriptive statistics). The ANOVA for single-quantity mole problems was significant, F (3, 83) = 3.60,g < .05, MSe = 220.6. Post hoc tests indicated that the Visual Organiser/Cooperative Learning groupperformed significantly better than the Visual only group. No other between-group comparisons weresignificant. The analysis of the multiple-quantity mole problems was also statistically significant, F (3, 83)= 3.44, g < .05, MSe = 207.85. The Visual Organiser/Cooperative Learning Group significantly outper-formed the Cooperative Learning group.

Table 3Scores3 on Single- and Multiple-Quantity Free-response Problems on the Mid-term

FREE-RESPONSE PROBLEMS ON MID-TERM

Single-Quantity Moles Multiple-Quantity Moles

Experimental Group Mean SD (n) Mean SD

Visual/Cooperative


Visual Organiser

Teacher-Directed

2.81

1.51

1.45

1.95

1.42(21)

1.55 (23)

1.57(22)

1.57(21)

2.83

1.61

1.66

1.63

1.26

1.65

1.46

1.55

Reflections

The themes that appeared in students' reflections were identified and their comments related to thesethemes were tabulated. The frequency with which themes were identified by students in the four experi-mental conditions are presented in Table 4. Student reflections provide support for the implementation ofthe actual experimental conditions. Those students who were in groups that used visual organisers mademore reflections on the mole map than on any other theme and in contrast, the students who did not studywith these organisers made no reference to them. This pattern also suggests that diffusion of treatment wasnot a problem. It is clear from Table 4 that students valued the cooperative groups, although the studentsin the Visual Organiser/Cooperative Learning groups made more reference to the helpfulness of the groups.In general, the student reflections provided confirmation that the treatments were implemented as intended.

Discussion

The four experimental groups began the experiment with performance levels in Chemistry that werestatistically equivalent to one another and with teachers who were not known to be differentially effective.The different instructional methods used in the research resulted in differences in performance. Thecombination of using visual organiser and cooperative learning was the most effective method for instructionamong the varied instructional methods used in the experiment. Students in this group significantlyoutperformed those in the Teacher-Directed group overall and particularly on immediate post-instructiontests involving single and multiple-quantity mole problems. In addition, the Visual Organiser/CooperativeLearning group significantly outperformed the Visual Organiser group on the single mole free-responseproblems and the Cooperative Learning group on the multiple-quantity free-response mole problems.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table 4Frequency of Themes in Reflections as a Function of Experimental Condition

Topic

Test/Chemistry is hard

Like problem/Mathematics

Factor Label Method helps

Group helps

Confused about the test or Chemistry

How to start/proceed

Remembers from class

Mole Map

Did not study

Total

Visual/CooperativeGroup

11

0

10

19

1

0

4

34

3

82

EXPERIMENTAL

CooperativeLearning

16

6

2

9

20

17

2

0

1

73

GROUP

VisualOrganiser

3

4

10

0

0

0

1

35

0

53

Teacher-Directed

21

18

1

0

26

30

3

0

2

101

The combination of the use of visual organiser and cooperative learning appears to be quite powerful.Reflections by students in this group included frequent reference to the use of the mole map in theirapproach to tests but also commented on the usefulness of the group (with almost twice the frequency ofthe Cooperative Learning only group). One function of the visual organiser on the tests (and students wereworking from memory) was to help students get started on a problem. Students in the visual organisergroups did not make any reference to having difficulty in knowing how to start a problem or how to proceedalthough students in the Cooperative Learning group and the Teacher-Directed group included manycomments on this difficulty. Those who were in cooperative learning groups did find the groups helpful andcommented on the ease of being able to ask questions and have someone explain information.

The addition of the organiser to the Cooperative Learning group may have served to structure the kindof discussion in the groups so that students had a clearer idea of how to proceed. This seems to be the casebased on the difference in the number of comments related to confusion about where to start from studentsin the Cooperative Learning group (n = 17) and expressions of confusion about the test or about Chemistry(n = 20). One difficulty for students in the Cooperative Learning group may have been that the test contextwas different from the learning context. One potential advantage of the use of the visual organiser in boththe Visual Organiser/Cooperative Learning group and the Visual Organiser group is that students had astrategy they could recall that would also guide individual performance in addition to perhaps structuringinteraction during initial learning. The fact that students who used visual organisers (either individually orin groups) made so many references to them clearly indicates that they were using these as a strategy duringtesting.

The kind of task used in this research is quite procedural in nature. The more open-ended nature of thegroup structures in the Cooperative Learning group may not have provided sufficient structure for studentsto learn procedures and understand them. The structure in place may be better suited to a more ambiguoustask in which the relative lack of structure may permit the expression of alternative points of view thatwould deepen understanding. In the study reported here, a more structured approach to cooperation mayhave been needed. The use of the visual organiser in the other Cooperative Learning group may have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


provided this structure. The results of the Teacher-Directed group suggest that without specific assistancestudents do not do as well with complex problem solving procedures that are demanding of memory andcognitive resources.

Another interesting outcome from this study is the decrement in student performance across all groupsfrom immediate post-instruction testing to the mid-term examination (a few weeks later). Students ingeneral did not do very well on the problems and questions related to moles on the mid-term although theCooperative Learning group showed less decrement over time than did the other groups. Students may needmore assistance in ways to prepare for delayed tests and may need opportunities for distributed practice andtesting.

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association of University Women Report. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: NEAProfessional Library.

Beichl, G. I. (1986). Unit basis - a neglected problem solving technique. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 146-147.

Black, K. A. (1993). What to do when you stop lecturing. Chemical Education, 70, 140-144.

Bodner, G. M. (1987). The role of algorithms in teaching problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 64,513-514.

Bowen, C. W. (2000). A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and collegechemistry achievement. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 116-119.

Brickhouse, N. W., Carter, C. S., & Scantlebury, K. C. (1990). Women and chemistry: Shifting the equilibrium towardsuccess. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 116-118.

Brooks, D. W. (1993). Technology in chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 705-707.

Cardulla, P. (1987). Solving chemistry problems without utilizing the factor-label approach. Journal of ChemicalEducation, 64, 519-520.

Desmarals, G. (1988). An alternative to using the PV-nRT. Chemical Education, 65, 392.

Gabel, D. L., & Samuel, K.V. (1986). High school students' ability to solve molarity problems and their analogcounterparts. Research in Science Teaching, 23, 165-176.

Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R.D. (1983). Facilitating problem solving in high school chemistry. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 29, 163-177.

Gabel, D., & Sherwood, R. D. (1984). Analyzing difficulties with mole-concept tasks by using familiar analog tasks.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 843-851.

Hagen, J. P. (2000). Cooperative learning in organic II: Increased retention on a computer campus. Journal of ChemicalEducation, 77, 1441-1444.

Hayes, J.R. (1989). The complete problem solver. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johnson, D. W, & Johnson, R. T (1989) Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: InteractionBook Co.

Johnson, R. T, & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science andChildren, 24, 31-32.

Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701-705.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Verdi, M. P., Rittschof, K., & Savenye, W. (1993). Why maps improve memory for text:The influence of structural information on working memory operations. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,5, 375-392.

Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Woodard, K. A., & Haywood, R. C. (1993). Comparing elaboration and dual codingtheories: The case of maps and text. American Journal of Psychology, 106, 483-498.

Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Cross, D. R., & Reynolds, S. B. (1989). Multirelational semantic maps. EducationalPsychology Review, 1, 331-367.

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

Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,27, 937-949.

O'Donnell, A. M. (2001). Group processes in the classroom. International encyclopedia for the social and behavioralsciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. R, & Hall, R. H. (in press). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing.Educational Psychology Review.

O'Donnell, A. M., & O'Kelly, J. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of positive results. EducationalPsychology Review, 6, 321-349.

Okebukola, P. A. (1992). Can good concept mappers be good problem solvers in science? Educational Psychology, 12,113-129.

Osimioma, U.I. N. (1997, March). Remediation of gender inequity in science in a developing country: An experimentwith cooperative concept mapping. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Researchin Science Teaching.

Paivio, A. (1990), Dual coding theory. In Mental representations: A dual coding approach (pp. 53-83). New York:Oxford University Press.

Phillips, K. L. (1989). Relating the mole concept and fundamental mathematics (ERIC Document ReproductionService No ED 925 392).

Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., DuBois, N. F., & Devaney, T. (1998). Interactive effects of graphic organisers anddelayed review on concept development. Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 17-31.

Ross, M. & Fulton, R. B. (1994). Active learning strategies in the analytical chemistry classroom. Journal of ChemicalEducational, 141-2.

Roth, W. M. (1994). Student views of collaborative concept mapping: An emancipatory research project. ScienceEducation, 78, 1-34.

Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: Amicroanalysis of high school physics students. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 503-534.

Scantlebury, K., & Kahle, J. B. (1993). The implementation of equitable teaching strategies by high school biologystudent teachers. Research in Science Teaching, 30, 537-545.

Schearer. W. R, (1988). Beyond the traditional lecture system of teaching chemistry: Organic chemistry. Journal ofChemical Education, 65, 133-136.

Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn, and academic achievement. In S. Sharan(Ed.) Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 173-202). New York: Praeger.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.

Tobias, S. (1987). Chemistry: Ideas to reflect upon. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 98.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


VerBeek, K., & Louters, L. (1991). Chemical language skills: Investigating the deficit. Journal of Chemical Education,68, 389-391.

Ward, R., J. & Bodner, G. M. (1993). How lecture can undermine the motivation of our students. Journal of ChemicalEducation, 70, 198-99.

Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and math learning in small groups. Journal for Research inMathematics Education, 22, 366-389.

Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journalof Educational Psychology, 87, 406-423.

Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 195-197.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

32 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

cooperative learning and visual organisers: effects on solving mole problems in high school...

Documents