Advertisement

The Effect of Systemic Synthesis Questions [SSynQs] on Students’ Performance and Meaningful Learning in Secondary Organic Chemistry Teaching

  • Tamara N. Hrin
  • Dušica D. Milenković
  • Mirjana D. Segedinac
Article

Abstract

Many studies in the field of chemical education have emphasized the fact that students at secondary level have considerable difficulties in mastering organic chemistry contents. As a result, they choose to learn these contents in a “rote” way. Taking this fact into consideration, the first aim of our study was to help students in overcoming the aforementioned difficulties by applying new instructional tools—systemic synthesis questions [SSynQs]. To achieve the aim of our research, an experiment with two parallel groups was conducted. The experimental group was taught using [SSynQs] and the control group was taught using a traditional approach. The study included 65 students, 41 males, and 24 females, aged between 17 – 18 years. All the students attended the same high school and were taught by the instructions of the same teacher. The results showed that students from the experimental group achieved higher scores on the final testing than students from the control group. This confirmed the fact that application of [SSynQs] in the educational process improves students’ meaningful learning in organic chemistry domain. Additionally, after conducting an exploratory factor analysis of the obtained data, [SSynQs] were characterized as highly effective tools for assessing students’ meaningful understanding. Furthermore, our study has highlighted and connected two applications of [SSynQs] in the chemistry educational process. Firstly as an instructional tool and secondly as an assessment tool. The important task for future research would be to evaluate a third application of [SSynQs] as a diagnostic tool.

Keywords

Assessment tool Instructional tool Meaningful learning and understanding Organic chemistry Student’s performance Systemic synthesis questions [SSynQs] 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia under Grant number 47003.

Supplementary material

10763_2015_9620_MOESM1_ESM.doc (317 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 317 kb)

References

  1. Al-bashaireh, Z. (2011). Systemic approach effect on achievement of Tafila school students in science. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(3), 47–52.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D. P. (1977). The facilitation of meaningful verbal learning in the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 12(2), 162–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
  4. Childs, P. E. & Sheehan, M. (2009). What’s difficult about chemistry? An Irish perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 204–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L. & DiCarlo, S. E. (2005). Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: Ability to solve novel problems. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 107–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis, J. W. (1994). How are we going to teach organic if the task face has its way? Journal of Chemical Education, 71(5), 399–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eroğlu, M. G. & Kelecioğlu, H. (2011). An analysis of the validity and reliability of concept map and structural communication grid scores. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 210–220.Google Scholar
  8. Fahmy, A. F. M. & Lagowski, J. J. (1999). The use of systemic approach in teaching and learning chemistry for the 21st century. Purre and Applied Chemistry, 71(5), 859–863.Google Scholar
  9. Fahmy, A.F.M. & Lagowski, J.J. (2002). Systemic approach to teaching and learning chemistry: SATLC in Egypt. Chemical Education International, 3 (1), AN-1. Retrieved from: http://old.iupac.org/publications/cei/vol3/0301x0an1.html.
  10. Fahmy, A. F. M. & Lagowski, J. J. (2003). Systemic reform in chemical education: An international perspective. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9), 1078–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahmy, A.F.M. & Lagowski, J.J. (2004). Using SATL techniques to assess student achievement in chemistry. Paper presented at 18th International Conference on Chemical Education, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  12. Fahmy, A. F. M. & Lagowski, J. J. (2012). Systemic assessment as a new tool for assessing students learning in chemistry using SATL methods: Systemic true false [STFQs] and systemic sequencing [SSQs] question types. African Journal of Chemical Education, 2(2), 66–78.Google Scholar
  13. Frisbie, D. A. (1988). NCME instructional model on reliability of scores from teacher-made tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heinze-Fry, J. A. & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74(4), 461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henningsen, M. & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and students cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hrin, T. N., Segedinac, M. D. & Milenković, D. D. (2013). Development of ontological knowledge representation: Learning hydrocarbons with double bonds at the secondary level. African Journal of Chemical Education, 3(2), 76–90.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, S. R. G. (1992). Was there a Hawthorne effect? American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katz, M. (1996). Teaching organic chemistry via student-directed learning: A technique that promotes independence and responsibility in the student. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(5), 440–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lopez, E., Kim, J., Nandagopal, K., Cardin, N., Shavelson, R. J. & Penn, J. H. (2011). Validating the use of concept-mapping as a diagnostic assessment tool in organic chemistry: implications for teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Novak, J. D. (1984). Application of advances in learning theory and philosophy of science to the improvement of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 61(7), 607–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Dwyer, A. & Childs, P. (2011). Second level Irish pupils’ and teachers’ view of difficulties in Organic Chemistry. Paper presented at the Western Europe IOSTE Mini-Symposium—Science Education Research, Limerick, Ireland.Google Scholar
  26. Osterlind, S. J. (2002). Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats. New York, NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Özmen, H., Demircioğlu, G. & Coll, R. K. (2009). A comparative study of the effects of a concept mapping enhanced laboratory experience on Turkish high school students’ understanding of acid-base chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pursell, D. P. (2009). Adapting to student learning styles: Engaging students with cell phone technology in organic chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(10), 1219–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scalise, K. & Gifford, B. (2006). Computer-based assessment in e-learning: A framework for constructing “Intermediate Constraint” questions and tasks for technology platforms. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(6), 4–44.Google Scholar
  31. Segedinac, M., Segedinac, M., Konjović, Z. & Savić, G. (2011). A formal approach to organization of educational objectives. Psihologija, 44(4), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stojiljković, A. (1989). Hemija za III razred gimnazije prirodno-matematičkog smera, medicinske, veterinarske i škole za negu lepote [Chemicals for the third year of high school Natural Sciences directions, medical, veterinary and Beauty Schools]. Beograd, Serbia: Zavod za udžbenike.Google Scholar
  33. Taagepera, M. & Noori, S. (2000). Mapping students’ thinking patterns in learning organic chemistry by the use of knowledge space theory. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(9), 1224–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  35. Tien, L. T., Roth, V. & Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vachliotis, T., Salta, K., Vasiliou, P. & Tzougraki, C. (2011). Exploring novel tools for assessing high school students’ meaningful understanding of organic reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(3), 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vachliotis, T., Salta, K. & Tzougraki, C. (2013). Meaningful understanding and systems thinking in organic chemistry: Validating measurement and exploring relationships. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 239–266. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9382-x.
  38. Zoller, U. & Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Higher and lower-order cognitive skills: The case of chemistry. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamara N. Hrin
    • 1
  • Dušica D. Milenković
    • 1
  • Mirjana D. Segedinac
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Environmental ProtectionUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations