Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compounding Confusion? When Illustrative Practical Work Falls Short of its Purpose—A Case Study

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

“… learning Science entails students learning the literacies of the scientific discourse community, which uses a range of subject-specific and general representational tools to construct and justify evidence-based claims about the natural world.” Tytler et al. (2009, p. 1)

Abstract

Illustrative practical work is commonly used in chemistry education to enrich students’ understandings of chemical phenomena. However, it is possible that such practical work may not serve to foster understanding but rather cause further confusion. This paper reports the struggles experienced by a group of senior (Year 12) secondary chemistry students as they sought to understand redox chemical concepts involved in the reactions occurring when steel wool is added to copper sulfate solution. The results showed that the students lacked the skills required to make accurate observations during the practical work. Nor were they able to link the observed phenomena with previously taught redox concepts. The paper also presents possible ways to overcome the difficulties encountered by students as they move between macroscopic and submicroscopic levels of representation of redox reactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cheung, D. (2008). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107–130. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9102-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research: introduction: the discipline and practice of qualititive research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as a scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. (1994). The fallacy of induction in science teaching. In R. Levinson (Ed.), Teaching science (pp. 41–48). London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • France, B., & Haigh, M. (2009). The pedagogy of practical work. In S. Ritchie (Ed.), The world of science education: handbook of research in Australasia (pp. 217–234). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. (1993). Use of particulate nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D., & Bunce, D. (1994). Research on problem solving. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 301–321). New York: Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1990). Common misconceptions in electrochemistry: can we improve the students’ understanding of this topic? Chemeda: Australian Journal of Chemical Education, 27, 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualisation: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualisation in science education (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, D. (2006). Inquiry in science classrooms: rhetoric or reality? Proceedings of the ACER Research Conference: Boosting science learning—what will it take? (pp. 31–35). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunstone, R. F. (1991). Restructuring theory from practical experience. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 67–77). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1985). Misconceptions of chemical equilibrium. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, M. (2007). Can investigative practical work in high school biology foster creativity? Research in Science Education, 37, 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, M. (2010). Science classroom cultures and practices that foster creativity. In A. Corrigan (Ed.), Creativity: fostering, measuring and contexts (pp. 59–79). Hauppauge: Nova.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, M., & Hubbard, D. (1999). “I know I’ve learnt something”: Investigating in Secondary Science. In B. Bell & R. Baker (Eds.), Developing the science curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 53–66). Auckland: Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, M., France, B., & Forret, M. (2005). Is ‘doing science’ in New Zealand classrooms an expression of scientific inquiry? International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, M., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this prac? or Can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 655–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, P., & Laszlo, P. (1991). Representation in chemistry. Angewandte Chemie, International Edition in English, 30(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro- chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to a changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, E. (1996). What do they think of chemistry? Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(2), 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clarke, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and enquiry based learning. Educational Pyschologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualisation in science education (pp. 121–146). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lazanski, T., & Kljajić, M. (2006). Systems approach to complex systems modelling with special regards to tourism. Kybernetes, 35(7/8), 1048–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R. (June, 2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper presented at the High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, Retrieved August 13, 2009, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/11195279/The-role-of-practical-work-in-the-teaching-and-learning-of-science.

  • Nakhleh, M. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, W. (2003). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Zealand Qualification Authority. (2009). Chemistry Achievement Standard, 2.7: Describe Oxidation-Reduction reactions. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://www.nzqa.nz.

  • Schmidt, H.-J., & Volke, D. (2003). Shift of meaning and students’ alternative concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1409–1424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H.-J., Marohn, A., & Harrison, A. (2007). Factors that prevent learning in electrochemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 258–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasker, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Facing mismatches in the classroom. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: the implications of childrens’ science (pp. 66–80). Auckland: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of sub-microscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., & Prain, V. (2010). A framework for re-thinking learning in science from recent cognitive science perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 2055–2078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Haslam, F., Prain, V., & Hubber, P. (December, 2009). An explicit representational focus for teaching and learning about animals in the environment. Teaching Science, Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6957/is_4_55/ai_n45557674/.

  • Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in school science. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White, R. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 761–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Symonds Street, Auckland, 1150, New Zealand

    Mavis Haigh & Beverley France

  2. Otahuhu College, Auckland, New Zealand

    Roshni Gounder

Authors
  1. Mavis Haigh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beverley France
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roshni Gounder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mavis Haigh.

Appendices

Appendix A: Detail of Pre- and Post-practical Surveys

Pre-practical Survey

The purpose of this survey is to find out your views of practical work before you do the practical work on redox reactions. Please answer all the questions. The views you express will not affect your grades for this unit of practical work. Thank you for your time and input.

For statements A–E, think about your experience in practical work and how it helps you to understand chemistry ideas. Circle only ONE answer to indicate your level of agreement with the statement (For each statement the options provided were Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly disagree.)

Statements:

  1. A:

    Practical work helps me to learn chemistry

  2. B:

    Practical work teaches me about chemical reactions

  3. C:

    Practical work enables me to link observations to chemical ideas

  4. D:

    When I am doing practical work, discussions with other students or the teacher helps me to understand chemistry ideas.

  5. E:

    Practical work makes chemistry enjoyable for me.

For statements F–H, please comment on your perceptions of practical work.

  1. F:

    Practical work in chemistry is important to me because …

  2. G:

    Practical work motivates or inspires me to learn chemistry because …

  3. H:

    Practical work helps me to learn chemistry because …

Post-practical Survey

This survey was identical in format to the pre-practical survey except that the focus was on redox chemistry. For example Statement A was phrased as The redox practical work helped me to learn redox chemistry; Statement H was phrased as Redox practical work helped me to learn redox chemistry ideas because …

Appendix B

Analysis categories and expected responses at macroscopic level

Categories

Description

Examples of expected response

Fully correct answer

This category involves complete description of redox reaction for both substances.

An expected response category is, ‘A brown deposit initially forms on steel wool which falls to the bottom of the beaker and the blue colour of copper sulfate fades away; steel wool slowly disappears and the solution turns to a pale green colour’.

Partially correct answer

This category includes explanations, which have one correct idea as well as an incorrect idea.

The expected response in this category is, ‘the steel wool changed colour from silver to brown’ or ‘the steel wool changed colour from shiny to brown’.

Incorrect answer (a) Apparent Misconception

The category of apparent misconceptions had responses where students’ tried to make sense of the redox reaction by using inappropriate prior ideas.

An example of response which fit this category include, ‘they are rapidly reacting with each other causing bubbles’ or ‘copper sulfate reacts and corrodes iron filings’.

(b) Unable to categorise or no response

This category was based on explanations, which were incomplete, and those, which could not be coded or had no response (blank).

An example of response under this category is, ‘copper sulfate and iron is reacting’ or ‘CuSO 4   + Fe’

Appendix C

Analysis categories and expected response at submicroscopic level

Categories

Description

Examples

Fully correct answer

The correct answer category included responses, which identified both the substances oxidised and reduced and explanations for both the oxidation and reduction process.

Substance oxidised: steel wool

Explanation: because steel wool loses electrons

AND

Substance reduced: Copper ions

Explanation: Because copper ions gain electrons

Partially correct answer

The partially correct answer category included response to one substance identified, which could be either steel wool or copper ions solution with the correct explanation.

Substance oxidised: steel wool

Explanation: because steel wool loses electrons

OR

Substance reduced: Copper ions

Explanation: Because copper ions gain electrons

Incorrect answer (a) Misconceptions

Apparent misconceptions include explanations using inappropriate prior ideas.

Steel wool/because it is changing colour and rusting

Iron/Iron is combining with oxygen

(b) Unable to categorise or no response

Answers, which could not be categorised due to incomplete nature of the answers or lack of response.

Steel wool/because it changes colour

Iron/Because the reaction occurs

Iron/Because it is losing colour

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haigh, M., France, B. & Gounder, R. Compounding Confusion? When Illustrative Practical Work Falls Short of its Purpose—A Case Study. Res Sci Educ 42, 967–984 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9226-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9226-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation