A Critical Discussion of The Efficacy of Using Visual Learning Aids From The Internet To Promote Understanding, Illustrated With Examples Explaining The Daniell Voltaic Cell

Ingo Eilks; Torsten Wittec; Verena Pietzner

doi:10.12973/ejmste/75266

Full Text (PDF)

Ingo Eilks ¹ ^* , Torsten Wittec ², Verena Pietzner ¹

More Detail

¹ Universitat Bremen, Bremen, GERMANY² Engelbert-Kaempfer-Gymnasium, Lemgo, GERMANY^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This paper discusses what chemistry students might see while working with animations found on the Internet and how these electronic illustrations can potentially interact to reinforce rather than resolve misconceptions about chemical principles that a student may possess. The Daniell voltaic cell serves as an example to illustrate the ways in which visual aids can be interpreted differently by different people. Some illustrations seem to represent concepts which have repeatedly been discussed on the base of science education research evidence as typical student misconceptions about chemical concepts. These visual aids seem to embody the actual misconceptions of chemical principles rather than explaining the scientifically accepted chemical concepts behind them. This paper discusses whether such computer simulations are potentially helpful for better understanding, or whether they actually increase the risk of strengthening students’ incorrect interpretations or false ideas about chemical concepts. Implications for structuring and using animations are discussed.

Keywords

chemistry education
multimedia learning
animations
misconceptions

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 5, Issue 2, 2009, 145-152

https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75266

Publication date: 22 Jan 2009

Article Views: 2304

Article Downloads: 1240

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Allchin, D. (1998). Values in science and science education. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1083-1092). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I., (1998). Students' understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 305-316.
Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism – A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873.
Burger, N. (2000). Vorstellungen von Schülern über Elektrochemie - eine Interviewstudie [Students’ conceptions about electro-chemistry – an interview study]. Dissertation, University of Dortmund.
Butts, B., & Smith, R. (1987). What do student perceive as difficult in H.S.C. chemistry?. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 32, 45-51.
ChemgaPedia (n.d.). Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.chemgapedia.de/vsengine/vlu/vsc/de/ch /13/vlu/echemie/galvanische_elemente/batterie.vlu/P age/vsc/de/ch/13/pc/echemie/galvanische_elemente/ daniellapplet.vscml.html
de Jong, O., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The teaching and learning of electrochemistry. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 317- 338). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
de Posada, J. M., (1997). Conceptions of high school students concerning the internal structure of metals and their electric conduction: Structure and evolution. Science Education, 81, 445-367.
Eilks, I. (2003). Students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter and some misleading illustrations from textbooks. Chemistry in Action, No. 69, 35-40.
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.
Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992a). Conceptual difficulties by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and oxidationreduction equations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 121-142.
Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992b). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1079-1099.
Gomez, M.-A., Pozo J.-I., & Sanz, A., (1995). Students‘ Ideas on conservation of matter: Effects of expertise and context variables. Science Education, 79, 77-93.
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay E., & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 799-822.
Harrison A. G., (2000), How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students?. Paper presented at the NARST annual meeting, New Orleans.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research based practice (pp.189-212). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002a). Science teachers' knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education. 24, 1273-1292.
Justi R. S., Gilbert, J. K. (2002b). Models and modelling in chemistry education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47-68). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students' conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 249-270.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-140.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992), Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191-196.
Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: an interview study. Science Education, 62, 273-281.
Ogude, A. N., & Bradley, J. D. (1994). Ionic conduction and electrical neutrality in operating electrochemical cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 29-34.
Ogude, A. N., & Bradley, J. D. (1996). Electrode processes and aspects relating to cell EMF, current and cell components in EC Cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 1145-1149.
Pavio, A. (1986), Mental respresentations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pietzner, V., Eilks, I. & Witteck, T (2008). Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.chemieunterrichtinteraktiv.de/en/animations/electrochemistry/daniell_c ell/daniell_en.html
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple respresentations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 117-123.
Stavy, R. (1990). Children’s conception of changes in the state of matter: from liquid (or solid) to gas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 247-266.
Stork, H. (1995). Was bedeuten die aktuellen Forderungen „Schülervorstellungen berücksichtigen, ‚konstruktivistisch‘ lehren!„ für den Chemieunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I? [What does the actual plea ‚Considering Students ideas, teach constructivitictly!’ mean for lower secondary chemistry lesson?]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 1, 15-28.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1141-1153.

How to cite this article

APA

Eilks, I., Wittec, T., & Pietzner, V. (2009). A Critical Discussion of The Efficacy of Using Visual Learning Aids From The Internet To Promote Understanding, Illustrated With Examples Explaining The Daniell Voltaic Cell. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(2), 145-152. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75266

Vancouver

Eilks I, Wittec T, Pietzner V. A Critical Discussion of The Efficacy of Using Visual Learning Aids From The Internet To Promote Understanding, Illustrated With Examples Explaining The Daniell Voltaic Cell. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2009;5(2):145-52. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75266

AMA

Eilks I, Wittec T, Pietzner V. A Critical Discussion of The Efficacy of Using Visual Learning Aids From The Internet To Promote Understanding, Illustrated With Examples Explaining The Daniell Voltaic Cell. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2009;5(2), 145-152. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75266

Chicago

Eilks, Ingo, Torsten Wittec, and Verena Pietzner. "A Critical Discussion of The Efficacy of Using Visual Learning Aids From The Internet To Promote Understanding, Illustrated With Examples Explaining The Daniell Voltaic Cell". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2009 5 no. 2 (2009): 145-152. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75266

Harvard

Eilks, I., Wittec, T., and Pietzner, V. (2009). A Critical Discussion of The Efficacy of Using Visual Learning Aids From The Internet To Promote Understanding, Illustrated With Examples Explaining The Daniell Voltaic Cell. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(2), pp. 145-152. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75266

MLA

Eilks, Ingo et al. "A Critical Discussion of The Efficacy of Using Visual Learning Aids From The Internet To Promote Understanding, Illustrated With Examples Explaining The Daniell Voltaic Cell". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 5, no. 2, 2009, pp. 145-152. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75266