GRADE 11 STUDENT’S DRAWING ABILITIES TO INTERPRET MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIP LEARNED USING THINKING FRAME APPROACH OF GASES AND THEIR PROPERTIES
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this classroom action research was to develop students’ drawing abilities to interpret mathematical relationships learned using the thinking frame approach of gases and their properties. There were 30 grade 11 students involved in this study. Data were gathered from student worksheets, semi-structured interviews, teaching videos and the researchers’ notes. These data were analyzed in three elements, including particulate drawing, graph drawing, and mathematical relationship writing. The data acquired will be checked by method triangulation. The results show that, for the particulate drawings, students could represent composition, position, motion and interaction correctly for all cycles. For the graph drawings, in cycle 1, 2 and 3, students drew graphs incompletely into three components: determining the x and y axes, plotting graph points and drawing a trend line. However, they drew correctly and completely in cycle 4. For the mathematical relationship writing, students wrote relationships with mathematical symbols and variables corresponding to particulate and graph drawings accurately and completely in three forms: variation, constant-value relationship and correlation between the two conditions. The results of this study indicated that the thinking frame approach could encourage students to explain gas property changes by connecting three representations-macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic level through collecting data from observable phenomena with the naked eyes and interpreting particulate drawings and graphs to draw better conclusions in terms of writing mathematical relationships.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The owner of the article does not copy or violate any of its copyright. If any copyright infringement occurs or prosecution, in any case, the Editorial Board is not involved in all the rights to the owner of the article to be performed.
References
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097.
Bain, K., Rodriguez, J. G., Moon, A., & Towns, M. H. (2018). The characterization of cognitive processes involved in chemical kinetics using a blended processing framework. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(2), 617−628.
Busby, B. D. (2018). Transfer of graphing skills from math to chemistry. Montana: The University of Montana Missoula, MT.
Cheng, M. M. W., & Gilbert, J. K. (2017). Modelling students’ visualization of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1173-1193.
Cole, R., & Shepherd, T. (2019). Making sense of mathematical relationships in physical chemistry. In H.M. Towns, K. Bain and J.M.G. Rodriguez (Eds.). It's just math: research on students' understanding of chemistry and mathematics (pp.143-186). Washington, DC: ACS Symposium Series: American Chemical Society.
Delgado, C. & Lucero M.M. (2015). Scale construction for graphing: an investigation of students’ resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 633-658.
Engelbrecht, J., Harding, A., & Potgieter, M. (2005). Undergraduate students’ performance and confidence in procedural and conceptual mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(7), 701–712.
Fan, J. E. (2015). Drawing to learn: how producing graphical representations enhances scientific thinking. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(2), 170-181.
Gültepe, N. (2016). Reflections on high school students’ graphing skills and their conceptual understanding of drawing chemistry graphs. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(1), 53–81.
Ho, F. M., Elmgren, M., Rodriguez, J. M. G., Bain, K. R. & Towns, M. H. (2019). Graphs: working with models at the crossroad between chemistry and mathematics. In Towns, H.M., Bain, K. & Rodriguez, J. M. G. (Eds.). It's just math: research on students' understanding of chemistry and mathematics (pp. 47-67). Washington, DC: ACS Symposium Series: American Chemical Society.
Jantamattukarn, J., Sirisawad, C., & Thongsorn, P. (2019). A comparison of learning achievement and chemistry problem solving skills on “solid liquid and gas” of matthayomsuksa 4 students using 5E inquiry learning cycle model with Polya’s problem solving process and conventional learning management. Journal of Education and Innovation, 21(4), 79–92.
Katz, P. (2017). Drawing for science education. Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Kulgemeyer, C. & Schecker, H. (2013). Students explaining science—Assessment of science communication competence. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2235–2256.
Lin, H. & Cheng, H. (2000). The assessment of students and teachers’ understanding of gas laws. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 235-238.
Lin, S.S. & Mintzes, J.J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issue: the effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993–1017.
McLure, F. (2019). The Thinking Frames Approach: a case study of inclusion using student-generated multiple-representations. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(1), 3-13.
McLure, F. (2022). The thinking frames approach: Improving high school students’ written explanations of phenomena in science. Research in Science Education, 52(1), 1–20.
McLure, F., Won, M. & Treagust, D. F. (2020). Even though it might take me a while, in the end, I understand it’: a longitudinal case study of interactions between a conceptual change strategy and student motivation, interest and confidence. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 2(10), 1-17.
Meela, P., & Artdej, R. (2017). model based inquiry and scientific explanation: promoting meaning-making in classroom. Journal of Education and Innovation, 19(3), 1-15.
Ministry of Education. (2017). Core Learning Indicators and Contents Science Learning Group (Revised 2017) Based on the Basic Education Core Curriculum 2008. Bangkok: Agricultural Cooperative Printing House of Thailand.
Newberry, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2007). Bringing learners and scientific expertise together. In K.S. Taber (Ed.). Science education for gifted learners (pp. 197–211). London: Routledge.
Park, J., Chang, J., Tang, K. S., Treagust, D. F., & Won, M. (2020). Sequential patterns of students’ drawing in constructing scientific explanations: focusing on the interplay among three levels of pictorial representation. International Journal of Science Education, 42(5), 1–26.
Ploetzner, P., & Fillisch B. (2017). Not the silver bullet: Learner-generated drawings make it difficult to understand broader spatiotemporal structures in complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 47(1), 13-24.
Ryan, S. A. C., & Stief, M. (2019). Drawing for assessing learning outcomes in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(9), 1813–1820.
Schuchardt A. M., & Schunn C. D. (2016). Modeling scientific processes with mathematics equations enhances student qualitative conceptual understanding and quantitative problem solving. Science Education, 100(2), 290-320.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311.
Secken, N., & Yoruk, N. Z. (2012). An analysis of relation between concerns about the use of graphs in chemistry classes and multiple intelligences in terms of different variables. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education, 1(2), 142-156.
Steiner, E. (2008). The chemistry maths book (2nd ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(1), 156-168.