Help students to learn better Organic Chemistry with ChemSe

nse

Chan Kam Yuen (199122298)

Learning Organic Chemistry Furniss and Parsonage (1977)

3 most difficult areas: functional groups, isomerism and nomenclature

Bojczuk (1982)Organic chemistry was ranked as the most difficult area for students to learn

W.Brook (1988)– About 40% of sixth form and college students thought t

hat organic chemistry was the most difficult section of the syllabus in Kenya

AL Organic Chemistry in H.K.Before 1999,

Can be done better by drill & practiceDifficult for students with poor memorization

After 1999, Require students to analyze the questionsApply their knowledge into unfamiliar situationsRequire conceptual changes in this area

Cognitive Conflict Conceptual Change

Peer Collaboration Computer or Technology

Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)

ChemSenseComputer-based chemistry learning environmentRepresentational tool

A significant improvement in students’ understanding of solubility-related conceptsBut not a significant effect based on students’ test scores.

Collaborative toolA positive correlation between the use of ChemSense and developing deeper chemical understanding

My research Question

Would students learn better in Organic Chemistry if they learn collaboratively with the

help of ChemSense?

Methodological FrameworkChemSense will be integrated into a 13-week AL organic chemistry course in my school in Kwai Chung. Students work collaboratively in dyads on the ChemSense program carrying out discussion & exercises.

Provide cognitive conflicts that facilitate conceptual change.

The Class (Sample)

17 F.6 students of chemistry stream (8 F, 9 M) are divided into 3 groups

2 experimental groups & 1 non-experimental groupDivided with similar abilities per group

InstructionAll the content will be taught by me in normal wayExperimental groups will continue their discussion in ChemSense after lessons in home.Exercise will be done after every 2 topics had been taught (Totally 4 assignments)

Non-experimental group will do individuallyExperimental groups do collaboratively in ChemSense

Roles of ChemSense in My ProjectWork collaboratively Take active role in learningSet-up a Knowledge Data Base Continue their studies or discussion outside school

AssessmentsA pretest & pro-test (quantitatively)

Compare whether there is significant increases in test scores when compared with non-experimental group students (t-test)

Analysis their messages posted by Content Analysis (Herni, 1992)Interaction Analysis (Anderson, 1997)

AssessmentsMeasure their conceptual changes by

Interview 3-4 students in experimental groups The rest will do a questionnaire

Sample of students’ work

ControlGroup

Full Marks Mean (N=9) Girls’ mean(N=4)

Boys’ mean(N=4)

Pre-test 30 14.5 14.6 16.3

Assignment 1 19 8.9 4.5 8.5

Assignment 2 22 12.1 14 15

Assignment 3 23 11.6 16 14.5

Assignment 4 20 10.6 16 16

Post-test 16 10.9 11 12

Experimental Groups

Results and Analysis

Findings (1)Experimental groups perform poorer than the control group in Assignment 1

Students worked in a co-working mode (there was little discussion among the members)

The means scores attained by the experimental groups are higher than those of the control group in Assignments 2-4.

The t-value (N=9) that reflects the performance difference between the experimental groups and the control group in the pre-test, assignments and post-test.

Pre-test Assignment 1 Assignment 2 Assignment 3 Assignment 4 Post-test

t -value forgirls group 0.04 0.31 0.73 1.42 0.03t -value forboys group 0.63 0.47 0.49 1.42 0.33

Findings (2)

No significant difference in the performance of students from different groups is detected in all tests and assignments

the sample size is small (N=9) students participating in the experiment may not be able to ‘internalize’ the knowledge that they constructed collaboratively within the research period

Evidence of knowledge building in collaborative learning – Content Analysis

The number of messages posted for discussion by the experimental groups for each assignment tends to increase gradually

22 in Assignment 1 to 60 in Assignment 4The percentage of purely social (agreement) messages dropped significantly too

Girls: 85% 75% 21% 18%Boys: 36% 16% 25% 16%

The level of interactivity of a message the number of interrelated messages

Level of Interactivity = 3

Both groups started with a very low level of interactivity

For the girls group, the level of interactivity was 1 in the first assignment but increased to 5 in the last assignment.

For the boys group, the level of interactivity started from 2 initially to 7 at last.

The average message length (no. of words):

the girls group’s figure increased from 14.3 in the first assignment to 36.3 in the last assignment. As to the boys group, the average message length was roughly 35.0 in all assignments.

Analyzing Discussion – Interaction Analysis Model

Phase I: Sharing/comparing of informationPhase II: Discovery of dissonance and inconsistencyPhase III: Negotiation of meaning/co-construction of knowledgePhase V: Agreement/application of newly constructed meaning

Girls (46) Boys (51)Phase I 33 30Phase II 7 11Phase III 3 6Phase V 3 4

Number of postings of each phase in their discussion

Their discussion is mainly sharing information Boys’ group has more collaborative work than girls’.

Example of DiscussionSuggest synthetic sequences for the following conversions (not more than 4 steps)CH3CH2CH2COCl CH3CH2CH2CH2OCOCH3

Boy’s group discussed for better solution.(Phase II discussion)

Yan provide answer to this question first: I think in the first step, it need add H2 (Pd /BaSO

4 / S) in order to reduce the acyl chloride to aldehyde. Then we need (1. LiAlH4/ ether 2. H2O) to reduce the aldehyde to alcohol.

Fu provided a clear answer: 1.CH3CH2CH2COCl H2/Pd/BaSO4/S CH3C

H2CH2CHO (reduction of acyl chloride)

2.CH3CH2CH2CHO LiAlH4/ether H2O CH3CH2CH2CH2OH (reduction of aldehyde)

3.CH3CH2CH2CH2OH + CH3COOH CH3COOCH2CH2CH2CH3 (esterification)

Tetsu provided a better condition in doing the step 3 for Fu's answer:3. CH3CH2CH2CH2OH + CH3COOH(c.H2SO4) CH

3COOCH2CH2CH2CH3

Fu said thanks to Tetsu: 唔該你提醒我 , 我成日都唔記得 .

Tetsu's reply to his thanks: You are welcome. Actually your answer is very reasonable ka. But if you can add the complete condition to it, it will become perfect ~!  

Students’ attitude towards collaborative learning

Most students showed positive attitudes towards collaborative learning. Students encountered less difficulty when learning organic chemistry collaboratively. Prefer face-to-face communication than learning through computersHigh ability students preferred to work individually.

Attitude towards ChemSense in supporting collaborative learning

Students were positive regarding using ChemSense to support collaborative learning. Students were dissatisfied with the drawing tools of ChemSense. Students did not see the support of asynchronous communication in ChemSense as a means to help overcome the problems of time and space.

ReferencesBojczuk, M., Topic difficulties in O-and A-level chemistry, S.S.R., 1982, 224, 63, 545-51 Brook, W., The teaching of organic chemistry in schools – can we learn from the Kenyan experience? S.S.R., 1988, 69, 575-578Furniss, B.S. and J.R. Parsonage, Organic chemistry as an A-level topic, S.S.R.,1977, 206, 59, 132-77Schank, P., & Kozma, R. (in press). Learning Chemistry Through the Use of a Representation-Based Knowledge Building Environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia.

ReferencesGunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). "Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an Interaction Analysis Model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing". Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431. Henri, F. (1992). "Computer conferencing and content analysis". In A.R. Kaye(Eds.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 115-136). New York: Springer.