Discussion and conclusions
GUIDED ACTIVE LEARNING IN CHEMISTRY (GALC) AND 13-YEAR-OLD STUDENTS’ SELECTED CHEMISTRY CONCEPTS
UNDERSTANDING
Jasmina Kolbl and Iztok Devetak
Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to present two studies about Guided Active Learning in Chemistry (GALC) approach in chemistry classrooms. The first study investigated the influence of the Guided Active Learning in Chemistry (GALC) on the 8 Grade (age 13–14) students’ conceptual understanding of the hydrocarbons, and the teachers´ views on applications of these mod‐
ules in classrooms. Altogether, 47 students from a primary school in Slovenia participated in the study (24 students in experimental and 23 students in the control group) and also five chemistry teachers gave their views about the GALC modules application. The experimental group was exposed to the GALC learning units, while the control group was taught with the traditional approach (teacher’s explanation, question and answer, writing, etc.). In ad‐
dition, the first study also presents findings on how a new teaching approach influences the students' attitudes toward chemistry and towards collabora‐
tive learning. The second study reveals the results of application of the GALC modules about acids and basis chemistry. 129 upper primary school students (age 13–14) participated in the study (65 students were in the experimen‐
tal group and 64 students were in the control group). Different instruments were used for gathering the data. Students’ achievements in the experimen‐
tal group were higher than the results of the students in control group after the instruction of electrolyte chemistry. It can be concluded from both stud‐
ies that GALC teaching approach is efficient and can stimulate students to archive better chemical knowledge.
Key words: guided active learning in chemistry (GALC), teachers’ views, students’ achievements, students’ formal reasoning abilities hydrocarbons, electrolyte chemistry
Introduction
Developments in cognitive learning theories and classroom research show that students generally experience improvements in learning when they are engaged in classroom activities that encourage developing their own knowledge following a learning cycle (Farrell, Moog, & Spencer, 1999).
Students need to work together, not only because of their preparation for team work (in science and most of the professions), but because they learn better through social interactions. Students should reach their own conclu‐
sions and not be called upon to verify, for example, what the textbook or
instructor has indicated to be the expected result of the experiment (Spen‐
cer, 1999; Hanson & Wolfskill, 2000). Active learning methods are becom‐
ing more prevalent in science education as the verifiable evidence of their success becomes apparent to more educators (Michael, 2006) and received considerable attention over the past several years.
Research shows that there is a lack of evidence that traditional lectures as well as traditional laboratory activities in chemistry lessons contribute to promoting meaningful learning (Tobin, 1990; Lazarowitz & Tamir, 1994; Hofstein & Lunet‐
ta, 2004). Innovative learning strategies could be used by teachers at all levels of chemistry education to enhance the students’ motivation to learn chemistry (Hanson & Wolfskill, 2000; Eybe & Schmidt, 2004). One of such innovations is the GALC (Guided Active Learning in Chemistry) approach (Devetak & Glažar, 2010). This approach can be used by teachers in order to facilitate learning to learn strategies in students, who can apply them in the future when learning about new chemical phenomena described by more abstract concepts. The GALC is an educational approach that takes place in an environment where students are actively involved in the process of learning chemistry. When stu‐
dents use the GALC approach, they learn new concepts and connections from one another in groups within a social context. Their knowledge is developed by the data analysis and discussion of ideas regarding the learning content. By studying questions at different levels of cognitive demand and by formulating specific conclusions in solving problems, the students are required to meet the demands of the individual GALC learning modules.
The GALC approach, which was developed in line with the above assump‐
tions, was based on the POGIL (Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning) pedagogical method, the purpose of which was to teach process skills (such as collaboration and written expression) as well as the content using the inquiry based approach (Farrell et al., 1999; Hanson & Wolfskill, 2000; Han‐
son, 2007). It was developed according to the theories on cooperative and collaborative learning. This method was developed in the USA for use in teaching general chemistry, but POGIL can be applied to teaching other sub‐
jects, as well. Because this chapter is not dedicated to POGIL, this method will not be described in detail. You can get more information on POGIL at its official webpage: http://new.pogil.org/ and in some other references, such as in the papers published by Minderhout and Loertscher (2007) and Brown (2010). The difference between GALC and POGIL is in the organization and adaptation of the POGIL method to the Slovenian 45‐minute periods of les‐
sons. The GALC learning units can be used by the teacher in the classrooms during one learning period and are adapted to serve the teacher according to the standards and competences set by the national curriculum. Another significant difference is also in experimental work, which is incorporated
into the GALC learning unit. This approach is not characteristic for the POGIL method. Other segments of the POGIL and GALC units are similar. The GALC learning units have their specific parts, which follow consecutively and guide the student through the learning unit. At the end of each learning unit the students should be able to solve problems in connection with the learning content discussed (Devetak & Glažar, 2010).
Science educators have agreed that the development of a positive attitude to‐
ward science should be an important goal of the school curriculum (Koballa, 1988; Laforgia, 1988). Chemistry instructors have taken a number of approach‐
es to motivate students to learn chemistry and to improve student attitudes towards chemistry (Henderleiter & Pringle, 1999; Hume, Carson, Hodgen, &
Glaser, 2006; Miller, Nakhleh, Nash, & Meyer, 2004), and to improve students’
chemistry self‐concept as it is positively stimulated by POGIL approach applied in teaching chemistry courses for nonscience majors (such as nursing majors) (Smith, Paddock, Vaughan, & Parkin, 2018). On the other hand research show (Liu, Raker, & Lewis, 2018) that peer‐led team learning (Flip–PLTL) pedagogies effect students motivation to learning chemistry. Students in the Flip–PLTL environment were significantly more motivated toward chemistry at the end of the semester while controlling for the motivation pre‐test scores. Correla‐
tion results revealed variable relationships between motivation subscales and academic achievement at different time points. In general, intrinsic motivation subscales were significantly and positively correlated with student academic achievement. The findings in this study showed the importance of Flip–PLTL pedagogies in improving student motivation toward chemistry.
Various group dynamics operate that undermine the effectiveness of the co‐
operative approach, such as negative attitudes toward group work and stu‐
dent behaviors that are counter‐productive to group success. Researchers concur that student attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors are influenced by natural peer contexts (Parr & Townsend, 2002). Thus, it can be argued that student attitudes and behaviors will also be influenced by cooperative group environments. Other authors report gains in adopting cooperative learning techniques (King, Hunter, & Szczepura, 2002; Oliver‐Hoyo & Allen, 2005; Shib‐
ley & Zimmaro, 2002) and that cooperative learning chemistry course designs allow students to practice and develop the transferable skills valued by em‐
ployers (Canelas, Hill, & Novicki, 2017). Students participating in cooperative learning activities had a stronger perception of the relevance of chemistry in their lives, greater enjoyment of chemistry, and had more positive attitudes toward learning chemistry than those participating in traditional courses.
Two specific topics were selected to illustrate the GALC effects on students un‐
derstanding of specific chemical concepts. The first topic comprises concepts regarding hydrocarbons. Rare studies were conducted to show how active
learning approaches would influence lower secondary school students under‐
standing specific organic chemistry concepts, such as hydrocarbons are. One research by Sarkodie and Adu‐Gyamfi (2015) showed that the use of models can enhance students’ performance in naming and writing of structural for‐
mulae of hydrocarbons which form part of the IUPAC nomenclature concept.
The models are effective in teaching and learning of IUPAC nomenclature of hydrocarbons because not only did the performance of the students involved in the study improve but the attitudes of the students changed positively to‐
wards learning of IUPAC nomenclature of organic compounds. More studies were done on other aspects of organic chemistry, and this is the reason that hydrocarbons were used as a topic for developing GALC learning modules.
The second topic comprises concepts about acids and basis chemistry. Dif‐
ferent teaching and learning approaches were investigated when this topic was applied in school chemistry. Some results of research conducted in Slo‐
venian education context also show that GALC approach may have positive effects on students understanding neutralization reactions (Devetak, Križaj,
& Glažar, 2011; Šket, Ferk Savec, & Devetak, 2012). The study by Hoe and Subramaniam (2016), using four‐tier test indicate that the students harbor a range of misconceptions of varying strengths in relation to the properties of acids and bases, strengths of acids and bases, pH, neutralization, indica‐
tors, and sub‐microscopic views of acids and bases. However studies indi‐
cate that different active learning approaches on different levels of chem‐
istry education positively influence students’ achievements during learning about acid‐base chemistry and can diminish misconceptions about acid‐
base chemistry. Yaman and Ayas (2015) discusses how to evaluate students’
concept maps as an assessment tool before and after 15 computer‐based Predict–Observe–Explain (CB‐POE) tasks related to acid–base chemistry.
The results showed that there is a significant difference between students’
pre and post concept map scores (z = 3.05; p < 0.05). The majority of the students constructed their pre and post concept maps non‐hierarchically;
while they drew more interconnected concept maps after the CB‐POE tasks.
Another approach, presented by Karpudewan, Roth, and Sinniah (2016) in‐
corporating a green chemistry context ‐ combining chemistry experiments with everyday, environmentally friendly substances with a student‐cantered approach that includes student–student discussion show the increase stu‐
dents’ understanding of acid–base concepts and argumentative skills. These approaches are also incorporated into the GALC learning modules.
Two studies are presented in this chapter. In the first one the organic chem‐
istry GALC learning modules implementations was conducted and its effect on students’ knowledge was explored in relation to the teaching and learn‐
ing environment (i.e. cooperative learning). However, in the second research
similar implementation of the GALC learning modules was conducted and students’ knowledge measured, but their formal reasoning abilities were explored in relation to learning of general chemistry concepts.