Instructor’s Use of student-Generated annotated concept sketches in formative assessment in general science

Eddia Copeland Solas; Kenesha  Wılson

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Eddia Copeland Solas Abu Dhabi Men’s College, Higher Colleges of Technology, Abu Dhabi-UAE
Kenesha Wılson Zayed University, Abu Dhabi-United Arab Emirates

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Concept Sketches, Formative assessment, Active learning Strategies, Cognitive models, English Language Learner Friendly Environment

Abstract

Student-generated annotated concept sketches provide an alternative approach for instructors to formatively assess students’ understanding of environmental topics, such as photochemical smog and ozone layer depletion. The sketches are external representations of students’ cognitive models. Results obtained from a group of 150 female students using an action research methodology, suggest that this method is effective in enhancing students’ engagement and communication among peers. This further helps students to reinforce scientific theories and concepts. Furthermore, the data gathered also revealed alternative conceptions, misconceptions, and knowledge gaps in students’ understanding and provides an opportunity for easy and immediate feedback. In this study, misconceptions define ideas that are in direct contrast with the accepted scientific conceptions, whereas alternative conceptions describe ideas that are incompatible but unconflicting with the accepted scientific conceptions. Students were actively engaged and showed the ability to express their knowledge in ways other than writing, which is especially useful in English Language Learner (ELL) friendly environments. Students were required to participate in the lecture by paying special attention to the source of pollution, environmental impact, and solutions to issues related to air pollution. The representational annotated concept sketches were completed individually or in groups of two to three students. Feedback was provided orally, and/or using a rubric designed to identify and highlight understanding, misconceptions, and knowledge gaps.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abimbola, I. O., & Baba, S. (1996). Misconceptions & alternative conceptions in science textbooks: The role of teachers as filters. The American Biology Teacher, 14–19.

Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to Learn in Science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. doi:10.1126/science.1204153

Ajaja, O. P. (2013). Which way do we go in biology teaching? Lecturing, Concept mapping, Cooperative learning or Learning cycle? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 17(1).

Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536–553.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–90.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2005). Staying critical. Educational Action Research, 13(3), 347–358.

Chandrasegaran, A., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–307.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3, 7.

Cordero, E. (2000). Misconceptions in Australian students' understanding of Ozone depletion. Critical Studies in Education, 41(2), 85–97.

ÇÝMER, A. (2007). Effective teaching in science: A review of literature. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 20.

Davidowitz, B., Chittleborough, G., & Murray, E. (2010). Student-generated submicro diagrams: a useful tool for teaching and learning chemical equations and stoichiometry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(3), 154–164.

Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5(3), 202–210.

Howard, K. E., Brown, S. A., Chung, S. H., Jobson, B. T., & VanReken, T. M. (2013). College students' understanding of atmospheric ozone formation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(1), 51–61.

Jewels, T. J., & Albon, R. J. (2012). Towards a better understanding of learning and teaching in non-native languages in higher education. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 9(1).

Johnson, J. K., & Reynolds, S. J. (2005). Concept Sketches-using student-and instructor-generated, annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 85.

Johnstone, A. H., & Selepeng, D. (2001). A language problem revisited. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(1), 19–29.

Kern, A. L., Wood, N. B., Roehrig, G. H., & Nyachwaya, J. (2010). A qualitative report of the ways high school chemistry students attempt to represent a chemical reaction at the atomic/molecular level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(3), 165–172.

Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16–26.

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography—a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 28–49.

Mason, L., Lowe, R., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). Self-generated drawings for supporting comprehension of a complex animation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 211–224.

McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., & Owens, K. D. (2003). Assessment and active learning strategies for introductory geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(2), 205–216.

Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2013). Concept cartoons: what have we learnt? Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(1).

Nyachwaya, J. M., Mohamed, A.-R., Roehrig, G. H., Wood, N. B., Kern, A. L., & Schneider, J. L. (2011). The development of an open-ended drawing tool: an alternative diagnostic tool for assessing students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 121–132.

Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The Generative Learning Model and its Implications for Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 12(1), 59–87. doi:10.1080/03057268508559923

Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective primary teachers' understanding of climate change, greenhouse effect, and ozone layer depletion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 299–307.

Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241.

Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding School Improvement with Action Research: Ascd.

Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 872.

Solas, E. C., & Wilson, K. (2015). Lessons Learned and Strategies Used While Teaching Core-Curriculum Science Courses To English Language Learners At A Middle Eastern University. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 12(2).

Suat, Ü., Coþtu, B., & Alipaþa, A. (2010). Secondary school students' misconceptions of covalent bonding. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(2).

Taber, K. S. (2011). Models, Molecules and Misconceptions: A Commentary on” Secondary School Students' Misconceptions of Covalent Bonding.” Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(1), 3.

Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 142–166.

Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325.

Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14.

Wilson, K., Copeland-Solas, E., & Guthrie-Dixon, N. (2016). A Preliminary Study on the Use of Mind Mapping as a Visual-Learning Strategy in General Education Science Classes for Arabic Speakers in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 31–52.

Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves toward theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.

Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177–1198