Introduction
Before participating in the MCE program, I
had never taken an education course beyond the teacher training basics
needed to gain alternate-route certification and cursorily equip me for
the
classroom. As part of the MCE program, I completed one chemical
education course last year and am currently enrolled in another this
year. While engaged in these courses, I have immersed myself
in theories and research about how students learn chemistry and how to
improve their learning. The implications for my role in creating
student-centered, inclusive curriculum, classroom structure, and
classroom culture have been eye-opening. The following
resources are what I deem seminal articles/ authoritative voices in the
shaping of my viewpoint of chemical education and my role as an
educator and researcher.
The bibliography is divided into three
parts:
The
six articles in Part 1 address the question of why educational change
is
necessary and explore the constructivist nature of learning
and the specific
difficulties students face in constructing
chemical knowledge. The implications for classroom structure and
curriculum are clear: classes
must be
student-centered and very strongly structured around peer interactions
and concrete observations and the process of conceptualizing
observations. Parts 2
and 3 explore the questions of what a student-centered classroom looks
like and how to create it. The articles in Part 2 provide the
related research and resources in
curriculum methods that affect class structure. Part 3 focuses on
the last, and perhaps most crucial, underlying component of effective
teaching--the creation of a classroom culture that engages and respects
students. The social and cultural interaction of beliefs that
occur during
the teaching and learning
of chemistry dramatically affect student engagement and the more
longterm
goals
of sustained interest and engagement in the sciences.Within each part,
articles that have had the greatest impact in shaping my viewpoint are
cited and discussed first. There
are links to excerpted figures, tables, and websites that have been
particularly useful in crystallizing and further developing important
ideas (they open in a new window when clicked).
Part 1: A Constructivist Theory
of Learning
Johnstone, A.H.
(1997). Chemistry teaching--Science or alchemy? Journal
of Chemical Education, 74(3), 262-268.
Alexander Johnstone
(recipient of the 2009 ACS Award for Achievement in Research for the
Teaching and Learning of Chemistry) succinctly re-presents an information
processing model taken
from
education, psychology, and artificial intelligence theories that fits
within the constructivist framework of learning. Information is
learned only after it has been strained through a perceptive filter
into short-term memory where it is interpreted and processed by
interaction
with prior information retrieved from long-term memory. Only
after
the new information is placed in context with previous information is
it placed in long-term memory (i.e. learned) for future retrieval and
application. Because the amount of short-term memory available is
a constant, to increase the
efficiency of recall and storage, students
must
increase their ability to organize or "chunk" many separate pieces of
information
into a more manageable number of coherent, related groups of
information. A
student's preconceptions and lack of
experience combined with an abundance of new, seemingly unrelated
information can overload his ability to achieve meaningful, long-term
learning. In light of this model, Johnston suggests that
instructors abide by ten
commandments of instruction. This
article has been
particularly important in giving me a foundational model for
understanding how students learn and, in particular, how they process
new information in the context of previously learned information.
Spencer, J.N.
(1999). New directions in teaching chemistry: A philosophical and
pedagogical basis. Journal
of Chemical Education, 76(4), 566-569.
James Spencer, co-creator and advocate of the POGIL
method with Moog
and Farrell,
identifies that the majority of
students learn in a concrete-active fashion,
whereas most chemistry instructors learn (and therefore most
comfortably teach) in abstract-reflective fashion. To further
clarify the teaching-learning style
mismatch, Spencer compares the differences in student and teacher
roles in a traditional
versus a
student-centered classroom as well as
the differences between curricular strategies that do and do not
develop students' critical thinking skills. Failed curricular
strategies include solving exercises at the board, teacher
demonstrations of algorithms, and the solving of countless homework
exercises. Successful strategies include experiential learning
that
engages the senses via small group discussions and projects, in-class
presentations and debates, monitored experiential learning, peer
critiques, field experiences, developing simulations, and case-method
approach. To increase learning, Spencer encourages a instruction
that
parallels the learning cycle:
exploration followed by concept invention
(induction) followed by application of the concept (deduction). This article was particularly
useful to me because of its perceptive
identification of the common thought process
which frustrated instructors have in response to poor student
understanding, and for its comparison of the traditional classroom
(perhaps, my pre-existing
framework) and the student-centered classroom.
Bunce, D.M. (2001). Does Piaget still
have anything to say to chemists? [Online Symposium: Piaget,
Constructivism, and Beyond]. Journal
of Chemical Education, 78, 1107.
Bunce
recapitulates the educational implications of Piaget and Vygotski's
cognitive theories--learning should be student-centered,
process-driven, saturated with interaction with both the physical
environment and other people, and accepting and accomodating of
variation among students. Student-centered processes include
reviewing
or eliciting the knowledge a student already possesses before
presenting new knowledge. Learning through social interaction can
be
increased by learning in small co-operative learning groups of
teacher-classroom interactions involving dialogue. The key
implication of this article is that
lecturing may not be
student-centered enough or engaging enough to induce learning,
and it
is the responsibility of the teacher to determine methods of
instruction that actively include the participation of the
student. This has had an impact
upon my
understanding of teaching and
learning--students do not necessarily learn what is taught, or rather
"covered." Students learn what they construct via interacting
with the information, often through peer and instructor-mediated
discussions. Mere presentation of information is insufficient to
ensure longterm meaningful recall and application.
Nakhleh,
M.B. (2001). Theories or fragments? The debate over learners' naive
ideas about science [Online Symposium: Piaget, Constructivism, and
Beyond]. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1107.
Nakhleh
summarizes two theories about the naive
ideas
that learners possess, presents data from two studies of students'
learning about bonding and the nature of matter, respectively, and then
discussess the implications for teaching goals. The data in the
studies shows that students hold both theory-like ideas as well as
disjointed fragments. The implications for classroom practice is
that instruction should increase
meaningful connection of ideas with real world experience
to further help students develop, identify, and articulate conceptions
that are not fully developed or connected into a coherent framework, as
well as challenge students misconceptions with accepted scientific
theory. This article has given
me insight into the unique role
that experience of real world phenomena has in solidifying, connecting,
and challenging theories about the nature of matter. To create
more comprehensive, cohesive ways of understanding, the teaching of
abstract concepts must incorporate more concrete connections and
exposure to real-life observations.
Johnstone, A.H.
(1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to
changing demand. Journal
of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-105.
Johnstone expounds upon
information processing theory and the particular difficulties students
face in learning Chemistry that are related to the nature of the
subject. Chemistry has three
parts: macrochemistry,
submicrochemistry, and representational chemistry. In
describing the
multi-faceted nature of chemical fluency, this article made me more
aware of the need for sensitivity
toward the difficulties my students may face. My students may
have limited previous experience, and I must take care to build upon
what they already know without overwhelming them. Johnstone
suggests that an instructor must be particularly careful when first
introducing a
concept that easily touches on all three components of Chemistry (e.g.
the
concept
of elements and compounds). The instructor may have to limit
student exposure to only one or two dimensions to ensure the sound
construction of a coherent framework that can be revisited later.
Being taught a concept on all three levels simultaneously, particularly
when factoring in unfamiliar chemical language and symbolism, can
detract from the amount of available
working memory devoted to any one part, and can make the task of
becoming proficient overwhelming.
Nakhleh, M.B.(1992). Why some
students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3),
191-196.
Nakhleh identifies student misconceptions
across age groups (high school to undergraduate level) with the kinetic
and particulate nature of matter
(KPNR) and its implications to several other concepts in
chemistry: phase changes, equilibrium, reactions, equations. Examples and
illustrations of
student misconceptions are given. This
article is of particular interest to me because it highlights the
difficulty with getting students to understand the submicroscopic
nature of chemistry. In light of the previous articles
that
showed how concrete real-life experience is often the easiest way to
create coherent and meaningful learning, it is no wonder that students
have difficulty understanding an aspect of chemistry that cannot be
seen, but only imagined or experienced on the macroscopic level! At the same time, because KPNR
is such a cornerstone of chemistry,
whatever means necessary must be taken to increase student
understanding, whether that involves the use of manipulatives or
repetitive connection with and interpretation of macroscopic phenomena
in terms of KPNR.
Part 2: Interactive
Curriculum & Class
Structure
Landis, C.R., Peace, G.E., Scharberg,
M.A., Branz, S., Spencer, J.N., Ricci, R.W., Zumdahl, S.A., & Shaw,
D. (1998). The new traditions consortium: Shifting from a
faculty-centered paradigm to a student-centered paradigm. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(6),
741-744.
The authors of this article are faculty
from various colleges and universities that collectively comprise the New
Traditions
Consortium, an NSF supported project that seeks to
provide "the tools and data that will facilitate a paradigm shift from
faculty-centered teaching to student-centered teaching." This
article was particularly useful to me as it provided an overview of
several interactive tools and methods, as well as information on where
to get more complete classroom resources and feedback on the actual
practice of these methods. Of particular interest to me
among the
tools discussed were ConcepTests,
developed to make lectures more interactive by having students vote on
the answers to conceptual questions and then spend class time debating
and discussing the underpinning of their choices. Other
curricular methods included the team problem solving of challenge
questions, inquiry-based and open-ended laboratories, interactive
texts, and lectureless guided-inquiry worksheets. The evaluation
of these techniques included looking at quantitative classroom
performance (i.e. grades), student and instructor attitude, and class
retention (i.e dropout rates). This
articles serves as an
excellent starting point for looking into a wide range of techniques
for classroom structure to be more student-centered.
Farrell, J.J., Moog, R.S., &
Spencer, J.N. (1999). A guided inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4),
570-574.
Farrell, Moog, and Spencer are perhaps
the most widely recognized proponents of group guided inquiry through
the POGIL method,
a method they
have helped popularize with their books
and the
effective implementation of this technique in the General Chemistry
courses at Franklin and Marshall.
In this article, Farrell, Moog,
and Spencer discuss in detail
the typical structure of a class and an example of a good guided
inquiry lab, the structure of a guided inquiry worksheet, the practical
roles of students and instructors, and testing and evaluation.
While the use of the authors' practices would no doubt be modified in
my classroom to meet the particular needs of my students, this
article is informative in its attention to the small practices and
details that make the practice of the authors fluent and
cohesive. For example, the article explains the rationale
and the
type of roles students are assigned when working in their groups, as
well as ways in which the instructor's interaction reinforces the
benefits of those roles (e.g. vigilantly checking on each group, having
the "recorder" submit a copy of the answers to critical thinking
questions or a synopsis of the important concepts learned during the
class). This article was
particularly noteworthy for how useful
it was in providing me with starting points for adopting a similar
practice in my
classroom.
Roth, W-M. (2006).
Ch 1: Aporias
of perception in science. Learning Science: A Singular Plural
Perspective. Rotterdam:
Sense Publications, 27-66.
In this chapter of his book, Roth examines the
usefulness of science demonstrations in the classroom. Roth
examines the differing perspectives that instructors and students have
regarding the phenomena these demonstrations seek to illuminate.
In most cases, demonstrations alone were useless in creating an
understanding of phenomena when unpaired with proper context and guided
inquiry. Instead, demonstrations could even foster incorrect
notions or merely detract from the conceptual understanding they wer
seeking to reinforce. Since the perception of events and the causality
assigned to them is dependent upon current understandings and exposure,
Roth highlights the need to explore the phenomenon, seek explanations
from students, and to re-iterate the process. This article was disturbing and eye-opening
to me because I realized that while demonstrations (or any colorful or
engaging pratice) are exciting and fun, they are useless when devoid of
pedagogical practices that foster inquiry and the correction of
wrongful understandings. It reinforced the absolute necessity of
building exploration, inquiry, assessment, and repetition into
activities.
Research
Showing the Positive Effect of Peer Teaching and Group Learning.
Tai,
R.H., & Sadler, P.M. (2007). High school chemistry instructional
practices and their association with college chemistry grades. Journal of Chemical
Education, 84(6),
1040-1046.
Tai
and Sadler assessed how various curricular techniques experienced in
high school chemistry courses impacted college chemistry grades by
analyzing a sub-sample of data from a nationally representative survey
of introductory college science students from 2002 (Factors Influencing College Science Success,
Project FICSS, NSF-REC 0115649). The frequency and use of
lecture,
small-group work, individual work, whole class discussions, every day
examples, testing, peer teaching, standardized test prep, and community
related projects was correlated to performance (i.e. grade) in college
general chemistry. Peer
teaching and the use of everyday examples was positively associated
with college performance.
Individual work, demonstrations, and community projects were negatively
associated, though the authors hypothesize that demonstrations may have
had a negative effect because they usually occured with inadequate
student analysis and discussion. Community projects may have
shown a
negative association because of a lack of variance since most students
only engaged in them very rarely. This research reinforced the
need to include more peer teaching and everyday examples in my
classroom.
Williamson, V.M.,
& Rowe, M.W. (2002). Group problem-solving versus lecture in
college-level quantitative analysis: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(9), 1131-1134.
Williamson
and Rowe observed the differences in grades, retention rate, and
student attitudes between one section of a general chemistry course
that relied primarily on traditional lecture (the control) and another
section of a general chemistry course that replaced traditional lecture
with cooperative group problem-solving sessions (the treatment).
The effect of changing the class structure was quantitatively measured
by observing grades, dropout rates, and differences in attitude
surveys. The treatment group showed a pronounced trend toward
higher grades and lower dropout rates. The effect of changing the
class structure was qualitatively measured with student
interviews. Interviews showed that students enjoyed the communal
sense of solidarity formed, and that struggling students seemed to have
a quicker and easier time learning from peers than the
instructor. The conclusion was that student engagement and
learning benefited from the use of group problem-solving, but that
students and instructors could be resistant to changing traditional
classroom structure and that the sole reliance upon any instructional
technique would cause students to tire of routine. The authors
suggest researching a combined lecture and problem-solving approach to
address the drawbacks. This
article was particularly informative
because it provided quantitative evidence about the positive effect
that group problem-solving has on understanding, student attitudes,
and student retention rates, further convincing me of the need to
integrate more group problem-solving in my classroom.
Nakhleh, M.B., Lowrey, K.A., & Mitchell, R.C. (1996). Narrowing the
gap between concepts and algorithms in freshman chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(8),
758-762.
Noting the differences that exist between
an algorithmic and conceptual understanding of chemistry (Nakhleh,
1993), Nakhleh, Lowrey, and Mitchell sought to improve a second
semester college general chemistry course (Project REMODEL) by
replacing one traditional lecture session with an interactive special
session in which students worked on conceptual problems in
self-selected peer groups of six to nine people and then presented and
critiqued solutions to other groups and the instructor. The
authors assessed changes in student engagement and student conceptual
understanding by the use of student opinion surveys, performance on
conceptual and algorithmic questions on exams, field notes from special
sessions, and interviews of the participating professor. Results
show that students felt more engaged in the course and evidence from
session field notes supports their voluntary production and integration
of concepts. As the course continued, discrepancies between
conceptual and algorithmic questions on the exams also decreased, and
the instructor also noted an increased degree of enthusiasm and
achievement. This research is
important because it emphasized to me how the integration of even a
limited amount of
interactive, student-centered, instructor-guided peer-teaching into a
course can
improve learning and student attitudes.
Part 3:
Classroom Culture to Increase Motivation
Tobin, K., &
Roth, W.-M. (2006). Teaching
to
Learn: A View From the Field. Rotterdam:
Sense Publication.
Tobin and Roth's book explores and expounds
upon how to get started with and use coteaching and cogenerative
dialogues in one's classroom. Particularly helpful to me were the
insights upon how to use cogenerative dialogues as a means to
investigate the learning frameworks of my students and thus modify
instruction to better meet their particular needs. This practice
seems particularly well-suited to the goal of generating
co-responsibility in learning and in identifying and tackling problems
that affect the learning environment, but may not be addressed by more
traditional methods. The book gives practical guidelines such as
the baseline rule that all participants must act in the best interest
of all others, that the cogenerative dialogue must include viewpoints
representative of the class diversity, and that power asymmetries must
be minimized as much as possible. Tobin and Roth also provide the
basic structure of a cogenerative dialogue--discussion of a shared
experience followed by suggestions for possible improvements and shared
resolutions (or co-responsibility) to enact improvements. The
metalogue format that Tobin and Roth have interspersed throughout the
book allows for an interactive tone that is insightful and less
threatening in its presentation of the authors perspectives on
co-teaching. The excerpts of
selected cogenerative dialogues for
the purpose of illustration are also helpful in increasing my exposure
to a practice that may seem daunting, if only because of my
unfamiliarity with it.
Roth, W-M. (2006).
Ch 1: Aporias
of perception in science. Learning Science: A Singular Plural
Perspective. Rotterdam:
Sense Publications, 27-66.
I have repeated this citation (which is also found
in Part 2) because of how it speaks to the role that culture and
pre-existing beliefs have on perspective. Roth
examines the differing perspectives that instructors and students have
regarding the phenomena that demonstrations seek to illuminate.
In most cases, demonstrations alone were useless in creating an
understanding of phenomena when unpaired with proper context and guided
inquiry. Instead, demonstrations could even foster incorrect
notions or merely detract from the conceptual understanding they wer
seeking to reinforce. Since the perception of events and the causality
assigned to them is dependent upon current understandings and exposure,
Roth highlights the need to explore the phenomenon, seek explanations
from students, and to re-iterate the process. This
article has made me more aware of the need to question my own
assumptions and to use research as a contributing voice in developing
instruction. While intuition is frequently accurate in adapting
to the needs of the classroom, it is inadequate if not balanced by
perspectives outside oneself.
Yamagata-Lynch.,
L.C., & Haudenschild, M.T. (2008). Using activity
systems
analysis
to identify inner contradiction in teacher professional
development. Teaching
and Teacher Education,
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.014
This article was was
my introduction to Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)
perspective and activity systems analysis. It was particularly useful
to me in showing me how to sort through the qualitative complexity of
cultural activity to identify and analyze its key components. CHAT seems to be particularly useful when
the joint production of an outcome is the result of the complex
interplay of many factors. This article explores how activity
systems analysis was used to the identify situational factors that were
obstacles for effective teacher professional development. By
mapping out the subjects, rules, mediating tools, community, division
of labor, objects and outcomes, competing activity systems (a.k.a
contradictions) were identified and suggestions given for directly
addressing the underlying misalignments.
Thorton, L.J., &
McEntee, M.E. (1995). Learner centered schools as a mindset, and the
connection with mindfulness and multiculturalism. Theory
Into Practice, 34(4), 250-257.
Thorton and McEntee introduce mindsets dialectically
related to the
learner centered process. Mindfulness and multiculturalism
encourages educators to explore why
they engage in certain practices (in addition to the traditional focus
upon
exploring what practice is
and how one does it).
Mindfulness encourages attention to external detail and the internal
processing of experience, formation and re-organization of categories
when these are challenged, and continual adjustment to
knowledge-production in the present. Information is treated as
contextual and relative, rather than absolute and
unchanging. In this manner, mindfulness allows for openness to
and respect for different points of view--the foundation of
multiculturalism. The multicultural mindset is interconnected
with mindfulness in its evalution of cultural assumptions,
investigation of the "cultural components of an unfamiliar behavior
("new" knowledge) prior to
judging the encounter negatively or positively," and its reaffirmation
of pluralism. The multicultural perspective evaluates the effect
of language, the individuality of the learner, and ability to empathize
and modify interaction appropriately. After giving the
foundations of why an educator should engage in multicultural and
mindful practice, the authors also give a summary of practices that are
associated with
gaining a meta-cognitive awareness of one's one perspective. This
article initially provoked a meta-cognitive evaluation of whether my
currently held perspectives were actually mindful and
multicultural. While this framework of principles and theoretical
language is not readily observed at all times in my own experience and
practice, it will undoubtedly continue to impact the evolution of my
perspective as an educator as its coherence and validity to the
learning process is indisputable.
McCombs, B.L.
(2001). What do we know about learners and learning? The
learner-centered framework: Bringing the educational system into
balance. Educational
Horizons,
182-193.
McCombs posits that the educational system is
imbalanced because of its over-emphasis upon students' achievement of
content standards (i.e. knowledge conservation)
and its inadequate attention for the
particular personal, socio-cultural needs of a student in
knowledge production.
The problems that result include students' disconnection from learning,
increased
delinquent behaviors, and teachers' increased feelings of stress.
This article is
particularly relevant because it identifies the necessary teacher
beliefs that catalyze the creation of effective learning communities in
a learner-centered framework,
summarized
in the fourteen
learner-centered
psychological principles.
Moreover, the changeover to this
viewpoint is facilitated by teacher self-assessment and
reflection. McCombs analyzed data taken from more than
20,000 students and their teachers from kindergarten through graduate
school using the Assessment of Learner-Centered Practices (ALCP)
student and teacher surveys, which "identify teacher beliefs and
discrepancies between
teacher and student perspective on practices." The results
identified four domains of classroom practice that best predicted
motivation
and achievement in high school students: (1) establishing positive
relationships and classroom climate; (2) adapting to individual
differences; (3) facilitating students' learning and thinking skills,
(4) honoring student voice and providing individual choice and
challenge.
Conclusion
The
interactions with the
environment
and persons that comprise teaching and learning are complex and
nuanced. From an initial position of skepticism, increased
exposure to the pedagogical literature has fully convinced me that it
is a valuable resource in providing the language and framework
to more accurately characterize, analyze, and improve what is happening
in the classroom. By becoming increasingly more aware and
reflective of the ongoing process, I can more precisely guide my praxis
to increase learning.
Rather
than relying upon intuition, I am now more cognizant of the way that
students learn and the ways that I can cater my instruction to
complement that process. While I have always been aware that
(instructor) content knowledge alone does not produce good teaching and
learning, I have grown increasingly sensitive to the many other
factors--from culture, classroom management and infrastructure,
pedagogical practices related to learning, content, and
processing--that determine positive outcomes. I would like to
believe that as a result of expanding this awareness that I am now more
capable of assessing and adjusting these factors, rather than being
subject to the way things have always been done.
The articles and books that have an
effect upon my perspective and
teacher practice continually evolves in its
breadth and depth, and the degree to which one affects me also shifts
with the
particular needs of my classroom. My hope in constructing this
annotated bibiography is that I will continue to be open to
using new resources in informing my practice (that I will
continue to play an active role in the experimental construction of a
learning environment that meets the needs of all involved and is
consistent with educational research). I also hope to come back
to
re-examine and refresh myself with these ideas when feeling discouraged
or uninspired!
I thank you for taking the time to read
through this collection of resources. Please feel free to e-mail me with thoughts or
article suggestions.
|
