Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chemistry Education Research and Practice: Paper
Chemistry Education Research and Practice: Paper
In physical chemistry classrooms, mathematical and graphical representations are critical tools for
reasoning about chemical phenomena. However, there is abundant evidence that to be successful in
understanding complex thermodynamics topics, students must go beyond rote mathematical problem
solving in order to connect their understanding of mathematical and graphical representations to the
macroscopic and submicroscopic phenomena they represent. Though traditional curricular materials
such as textbooks may provide little support for coordinating information across macroscopic,
submicroscopic, and symbolic levels, instructor facilitation of classroom discussions offers a promising
route towards supporting students’ reasoning. Here, we report a case study of classroom reasoning in a
POGIL (process-oriented guided inquiry learning) instructional context that examines how the class
coordinated macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic ideas through classroom discourse. Using an
Received 15th April 2015, analytical approach based on Toulmin’s model of argumentation and the inquiry-oriented discursive
Accepted 16th June 2015 moves framework, we discuss the prevalence of macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic-level ideas
DOI: 10.1039/c5rp00064e in classroom reasoning and we discuss how instructor facilitation strategies promoted reasoning with
macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels of representation. We describe one sequence of
www.rsc.org/cerp instructor facilitation moves that we believe promoted translation across levels in whole class discussion.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 | 769
View Article Online
in how the triplet relationship has been defined reflect shifts in and laboratory activities, may provide relatively little support for
theories of learning chemistry over the three decades since the students reasoning with macro, submicro, and symbolic ideas.
introduction of Johnstone’s model (Talanquer, 2011; Taber, 2013). For instance, Nyachwaya and Wood (2014) found that the most
Johnstone’s original perspective centered on the idea that widely-used physical chemistry textbooks largely omit explicit
the macro, submicro, and symbolic ‘‘levels’’ represented levels of discussion of how mathematical representations relate to the
thought, an interpretation framed by an information–processing macroscopic or submicroscopic levels. They analyzed representa-
model of learning (Taber, 2013). According to this perspective, tions used in 12 common physical chemistry textbooks published
working memory capacity is a key limitation to cognition and in the United States and found that between 81 and 100% of the
learning. Though working memory certainly influences how representations in the texts addressed only the symbolic level.
individuals process and recall random information, the ideas Most commonly, these symbolic representations were mathe-
used to solve chemistry problems are seldom random and can matical and graphical representations. The use of multiple repre-
often be ‘‘chunked’’ together (Baddeley, 2003) or anchored to what sentations to highlight relationships across macro, symbolic, and
students already know (Ausubel, 1963; Novak, 2002). Furthermore, submicro levels was minimal and occurred in fewer than 1% of
experts and novices alike routinely use external resources, such as figures in all texts. The heavy use of symbolic representations may
calculators, pen and paper, or computers as resources to ‘‘store’’ not be surprising considering the highly mathematical nature of
Published on 09 July 2015. Downloaded on 10/4/2018 2:33:15 AM.
information externally while solving problems, permitting many of the discipline (Tsaparlis, 2007; Tsaparlis and Finlayson, 2014);
the limits of working memory to be overcome (Kozma et al., 2000). however, given the evidence that even advanced students may use
By contrast, sociocultural theories of learning suggest that mathematical expressions algorithmically (Bain et al., 2014) the
interaction with instructors or more knowledgeable peers can lack of explicit attention to coordinating across levels in curricular
support students in tasks that would otherwise be too complex resources is problematic.
for them to complete alone (Vygotsky, 1978). With respect to The laboratory component of physical chemistry courses may
the triplet relationship, for instance, instructors may scaffold similarly provide limited support for students’ ability to coordi-
students’ reasoning by modeling ways of coordinating macro, nate across levels of the chemistry triplet. An expert may believe
submicro and symbolic information (Taber, 2013) or may provide that laboratory activities requiring students to observe macro-
hints and prompts to enable students to make those connections scopic phenomena, to construct symbolic representations, and
themselves. Carefully designed instructional materials may also to explain trends in data would surely promote coordination
provide support for students’ reasoning. Gradual reduction of of ideas across levels of representation, but this may be overly
instructional scaffolds over time may promote students to develop optimistic. For instance, Hernandez and colleagues (2014) devel-
more independence as their own conceptual frameworks become oped a laboratory activity on adiabatic and isothermal gas
better integrated (Vygotsky, 1978). expansion. The activity was designed using a model-based
Our own interpretation of the triplet relationship is consistent learning approach (Justi and Gilbert, 2002) and asked students
with a sociocultural perspective on learning (Vygotsky, 1978; to express an initial model for the relationship between tem-
Wenger, 1998). We view macro-, submicro-, and symbolic-level perature and time for gas compression or expansion. Students
representations as resources for communicating chemistry knowl- were prompted to test their initial model by creating an observed
edge (Kozma et al., 2000). By using such resources with the temperature-versus-time graph for the system. Students were
support of instructors or more experienced peers, students may prompted to examine the differences between the observed
gain deeper understanding of discipline-appropriate ways of and predicted models, then revise their predictions and extend
engaging with these representations than they might on their their revised model to a new relationship (pressure versus time).
own (Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998). Instructors and curricular To evaluate the effect of this activity on students’ reasoning,
materials play a critical role in supporting students’ reasoning Hernandez et al. characterized the models and rationales students
with levels of representation in classroom learning environments. used to account for observable (macroscopic) changes during
Thus, we turn the next portion of our discussion toward work that classroom discussion and in their writing. They found that when
has explored the ways in which collaborative learning environ- students worked on the laboratory activity in small groups without
ments and instructional materials support students’ reasoning instructor intervention, they typically used mathematical relation-
within the triplet-relationship framework. ships algorithmically and struggled to revise their symbolic-level
models to account for their experimental observations. Hernandez
Levels of representation and curricular materials in et al. also observed that on their own, students did not connect
physical chemistry observed phenomena to particulate-level models, despite prompts
At the K-12 level, there are a number of curricular approaches within the laboratory activity that asked students to provide a
designed to help students understand chemical data and detailed rationale for the graphs they made – even though the
phenomena in terms of all three levels of the chemistry triplet prompts might lead an expert to believe that students would use
(e.g. see Levy and Wilensky, 2009; Jaber and BouJaoude, 2012). particulate-level explanations.
However, in most undergraduate chemistry curricula, espe-
cially in advanced courses like physical chemistry, support Instructor facilitation and the triplet relationship
for this skill may be largely implicit. Evidence thus far suggests Hernandez and colleagues found that while the structure of the
that curricular materials in physical chemistry, such as textbooks laboratory activity did little to promote students’ understanding of
770 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015
View Article Online
data across macro, submicro, and symbolic levels, whole-class student reasoning using Toulmin’s model of argumentation
discussion about the laboratory activity provided more support. (1958) in order to examine the ways in which students built
They observed that during whole-class discussions the instructor’s chemistry knowledge by connecting claims about chemical and
interaction with the class seemed to promote more explicit physical properties to evidence and reasoning. Kulatunga and
discussions of the relationships among macroscopic, submicro- Lewis categorized peer leaders’ verbal behaviors using a frame-
scopic, and symbolic levels. This was especially true in instances work developed by Gillies (2008). They observed that peer leaders’
where the instructor pressed students to generate submicroscopic use of questioning techniques and probing/clarifying behaviors
explanations to account for macro-level changes. The authors prompted students to provide evidence for their assertions (data,
suggest that the instructor’s orchestration of whole-class discus- according to Toulmin’s model) and to elaborate on the relation-
sions through the use of discursive interactions played a key role ship of evidence to claim (warrant, according to Toulmin’s model).
in creating the kind of environment in which students felt In particular, the warrants identified by Kulatunga involved
comfortable sharing reasoning and evaluating each others’ justi- explicit discussion of relationships between concepts and scien-
fications. While analyzing the nature and scope of instructor tific principles. To an expert, reasoning for many foundational
discursive moves was beyond the scope of this particular study, chemistry concepts requires explanation at the atomic-molecular
the authors suggest instructor facilitation as a promising route level. While the focus of this study was not on the extent to which
Published on 09 July 2015. Downloaded on 10/4/2018 2:33:15 AM.
towards helping students connect levels of representation. instructor facilitation supported coordination across macro,
In high school and general chemistry contexts, instructor submicro, and symbolic levels, we believe instructor facilitation
facilitation has also been shown to play a critical role in strategies that prompt students to explain their thinking and
supporting students’ reasoning with macro, submicro, and explain relationships between claim and evidence may lead to
symbolic ideas. For instance, Stieff et al. (2013) analyzed the greater elaboration of relationship between levels of representation.
way that instructor facilitation and whole-class discussion In summary, these studies suggest that even though texts
contributed to ‘‘levels confusion’’ as five high-school chemistry and laboratory activities may offer limited support for students’
classes reasoned about phase change. Specifically, these reasoning with the triplet relationship, effective instructor
researchers conducted a micro-analysis of classroom discourse facilitation of collaborative learning activities may have a
in multiple high school chemistry classrooms in order to positive impact on students’ ability to coordinate information
explore how instructor facilitation moves supported (or con- across macro, submicro, and symbolic levels. However, the
strained) the class’s attempts to negotiate joint understandings challenge here is that lecture approaches to instruction offer
about the features of macro, submicro, and symbolic levels few opportunities for instructors to engage with students as
of representation and the relationships between them. They they are learning. Such collaboration is far more likely to occur
adapted Lidar’s and colleagues’ (2006) framework for charac- in classrooms using engaged learning pedagogies.
terizing instructors’ use of epistemological moves, that is,
moves that communicate to students which ideas and relation- The process-oriented guided inquiry learning approach
ships are valid and which are not. Stieff and colleagues observed The process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL)
that confirming moves, those that affirm the appropriateness of a approach used in the Warfa et al. (2014) and Kulatunga and
student’s contribution, and reorienting moves that direct the class Lewis (2013) studies is an increasingly popular approach to
towards more canonical ideas were most supportive of students’ engaging students in collaborative activity (Eberlein et al.,
reasoning with the triplet relationship. However, their analysis 2008). POGIL materials (workbooks and instructor guides) are
also demonstrated how instructors’ use of certain technical available for high school and general chemistry courses as
definitions and heuristics may contribute to ‘‘levels confusion’’ well as for advanced undergraduate courses such as thermo-
by implicitly referring to multiple levels at once. dynamics (Spencer, et al., 2004).
Warfa et al. (2014) also used Lidar’s epistemological-moves As we have noted, there is some evidence that engaged
framework to examine the role of instructor facilitation in an learning approaches such as POGIL may contribute towards
undergraduate general chemistry POGIL context. From an improved reasoning with macroscopic, submicroscopic and
analysis of classroom discourse during an activity on solution symbolic-level ideas (Warfa et al., 2014). However, to date, there
chemistry, the authors also observed that confirming moves have been no studies that evaluate the impact of approaches
and reorienting moves that prompted students to explore such as POGIL on student reasoning in advanced chemistry
alternative explanations were most supportive of students’ courses such as physical chemistry. Given that the ability to
reasoning. However, Warfa and colleagues found that these coordinate symbolic (especially mathematical) ideas to macro
moves were only effective when used in dialogical discourse in and submicro levels remains a considerable barrier to students’
which students contributed to the discussion. The same moves success in physical chemistry, and that current curricular
were largely ineffective when used in monological discourse in materials may provide little support for these skills, it is
which the instructor lectured or posed rhetorical questions that important to understand the nature and mechanism of instructor
she then addressed. facilitation in engaged learning approaches. Without detailed
In another POGIL general chemistry context, Kulatunga and characterizations of how engaged-learning approaches like POGIL
Lewis (2013) examined the ways in which peer leaders’ verbal support or constrain students’ reasoning with levels of repre-
interactions supported small group argumentation. They analyzed sentation, our limited understanding of effective instructor
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 | 771
View Article Online
facilitation strategies will remain a barrier towards effectively of thermodynamics. A typical POGIL thermodynamics activity
using engaged learning approaches. begins with an introduction to a ‘‘model’’, that is, information
To address these challenges, we present a case study of from graphs, tabular data, text, diagrams, etc. In the initial phase
classroom reasoning in a POGIL physical chemistry class. This of a POGIL activity (exploration), students respond to questions
represents a strand of analysis separate from the data set that direct them to consider various aspects of the information in
reported on in Becker et al. (2013). In our prior work in this the model. These questions are primarily intended to support
classroom context, we found that students often misapplied interpretation and application of the information but may also
aspects of submicroscopic systems during small-group discus- require the use of prior knowledge. The second phase of the
sions of the POGIL workbook activities (Becker, et al., 2013). POGIL activities (concept development), includes questions that
Hence an important function of the instructor, and more require students to synthesize or analyze information (Moog and
broadly of whole class discussions, was to scaffold the class’s Spencer, 2008). In classroom implementation of the POGIL
reasoning towards more normative ways of reasoning using approach, the exploratory phase and critical thinking questions
particulate-level ideas. While our prior work focused on the are often used as the basis for small group and whole class
class’s reasoning with particulate (submicroscopic) informa- discussion. The third phase of the learning cycle (application)
tion, our intent here is to explore how the class coordinated involves further questions that require students to extend their
Published on 09 July 2015. Downloaded on 10/4/2018 2:33:15 AM.
submicroscopic, symbolic, and macroscopic information. Speci- understandings to new contexts. Application questions may be
fically, we address the following research questions: used in homework activities or in further discussion.
The POGIL physical chemistry class in this study typically
Research questions spent one-half to one-third of each class period engaged in
To what extent does the class reason using concepts from small group discussion. Typically, the instructor provided an
macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels? introduction to a new topic, after which students would work
What role do instructor discursive strategies play in on critical-thinking questions from the POGIL thermodynamics
supporting the class’s efforts to coordinate macroscopic, sub- workbook. During small-group work, the instructor generally
microscopic, and symbolic levels? monitored student groups, assisting as needed. In whole-class
To address these questions, we coordinated three analytical discussions, the instructor often initiated discussion of critical-
frameworks. First, we used Toulmin’s model of argumentation thinking questions by asking students to report on their
to examine how the class related ideas through collaborative groups’ reasoning. The class would then engage in more
discussion (Cole et al., 2012). Next, we characterized argument general discussion of the concepts and models related to the
components in terms of the level of representation they questions.
addressed (macroscopic, submicroscopic, or symbolic). Third, Data collection
we classified instructor discursive moves in whole-class discussion
using an analytical framework known as the Inquiry Oriented Video recordings of classroom interactions served as the
Discursive Moves framework (Rasmussen, et al., 2008). By exami- primary source of data. In total, we recorded twelve class
ning the interplay between instructor discursive moves and class- periods across a five-week period that began the second month
room reasoning at different levels of representation, our aim was to of the spring semester. Each class period was 50 minutes long.
identify specific features of classroom interactions that promote Content covered during this period is summarized in Table 1.
reasoning across macro, submicro and symbolic levels. Two cameras were used to record classroom activity; the first
recorded the instructor and class during whole-class discus-
sions and an overview of the classroom during small-group
Methods activity. The second camera recorded the focus group through-
out the class period. We selected one group of four students
Participants and setting for observation; this group’s membership remained stable for
The data for this report are drawn from a case study of class- the duration of the semester and all members of the group
room learning in an upper-division undergraduate physical routinely contributed to small group discussion. Copies
chemistry course at a midwestern comprehensive university of student work (focus group only) were obtained at the end
in the United States. Fifteen undergraduate chemistry majors of the semester.
were enrolled in the course. All participants were chemistry
majors in their third or fourth year of undergraduate study. Data analysis
Institutional Review Board approval for this research was We conducted two strands of analysis in order to (1) examine
obtained and all students provided informed consent as research the roles of macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic-level
participants. ideas in classroom reasoning and (2) explore ways in which the
The class was taught using the Process Oriented Guided instructor supported students’ reasoning with these ideas.
Inquiry Learning (POGIL) approach and instructional materials Fig. 1 illustrates our approach.
(Spencer et al., 2004). The design of the POGIL thermodynamics Strand 1: identifying the role of macroscopic, submicro-
materials is intended to help students develop conceptual scopic, and symbolic-level ideas in classroom reasoning. In
understanding of the theoretical models that are the foundation the first strand of our analysis, we adapted Toulmin’s model of
772 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015
View Article Online
Table 1 Topics covered during data collection period. All topics correspond to units in Spencer et al. (2004). Specific activities are indicated in
parentheses
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 | 773
View Article Online
be directly measured, such as temperature or pressure. We refer on student ideas rather than a direct evaluation of student
to these as concrete macroscopic constructs. A third type of thinking. Occasionally, instead of elaboration, the instructor in
macroscopic reference involved more abstract characteriza- our study would prompt other students to elaborate on each
tions of chemical systems, such as references to heat capacity other’s reasoning. Given the prevalence of questioning in this
or enthalpy change. These quantities cannot be measured setting, we were interested in identifying an analytical frame-
directly but can be inferred from calculated quantities. We work that would enable us to examine the roles played by both
refer to these references as abstract macroscopic constructs. of these moves in detail.
Submicroscopic level. We observed three types of appeals We identified the inquiry-oriented discursive moves (IODM)
to submicroscopic information. Most frequently, the class framework as an analytical lens because it provides a way to
referenced the relative motion and spacing of particles; this is characterize instructor discursive moves and their role in
information at a multi-particle level. Though less prevalent, creating and sustaining inquiry-oriented learning environ-
there were occasional instances in which the class used infor- ments (Rasmussen, et al., 2008). Originally developed in an
mation about molecular structure (molecular) or arrangement undergraduate mathematics context, the IODM framework
of sub-atomic particles (sub-atomic) as support for claims describes four types of instructor discursive moves and
specifically pertaining to entropy or heat capacity. their role in advancing classroom discourse and reasoning.
Symbolic level. The majority of references to symbolic repre- As illustrated in Fig. 4, the four main classifications in this
sentations in our data set were to mathematical representations, framework include questioning/requesting, revoicing, managing,
perhaps due to the nature of the thermodynamics content that and telling. Each of these moves is further parsed into four
was the focus of the class. We also observed some references sub-categories. To illustrate, the revoicing move occurs when one
to balanced chemical equations, graphical representations, speaker re-states or rephrases a contribution from a second
tabulated numerical data, and diagrams of physical systems. speaker. Sub-categories of revoicing indicate the specific function
Other. We observed that some argument components did of the revoicing move and include (I) repeating, (II) rephrasing,
not directly address information from macroscopic, submicro- (III) expanding, and (IV) reporting. Revoicing moves are com-
scopic, or symbolic levels. Statements characterized as ‘‘other’’ monly used to attribute ideas to students, to refine contributions
most often pertained to determination of what counts as made by students, and to highlight discipline-appropriate
system versus surroundings, the idea of conservation of energy, explanations.
or constructs such as reversibility. Since the focus of our work is The questioning/requesting discursive move includes questions
on understanding how students relate macroscopic, submicro- used to identify students’ understanding of key concepts. The
scopic, and symbolic representations, we discuss these other four sub-categories, (I) evaluating, (II) clarifying, (III) explaining,
ideas only to give a sense of their prevalence. and (IV) justifying, are aimed at eliciting increasingly more
To examine reliability of this phase of our analysis, two of complex information, from declarative knowledge to conditional
the authors independently coded six of the 24 argumentation knowledge. Questioning moves are important tools for instruc-
logs (B25% of the data) and compared codes for individual tors because they provide a mechanism for eliciting student
argument components. Initial percent agreement between the reasoning.
two raters was 75% and all discrepancies between the raters The telling discursive move is used to provide information or
were reconciled through discussion of coding approaches. respond to student questions. While less prevalent in inter-
Code definitions were refined in response to the discussion active pedagogies than in lecture contexts, telling moves are
of differences (see Appendix B for complete lists of codes and important techniques that may be used to provide direct
code definitions). evaluative feedback or to introduce new information to the
Strand 2: analysis of instructor discursive moves. In an class. Lastly, the managing discursive move relates to classroom
earlier analysis of this data set (Becker, 2012) we observed that management strategies and the way instructors orchestrate
774 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015
View Article Online
managing moves represent a mechanism for pacing the class. parison, 25% addressed relationships between symbolic and
We used a deductive coding approach to characterize each macroscopic ideas (macro-symbolic argument), while 11%
instructor utterance using the sub-categories in the IODM addressed relationships between macroscopic and submicro-
framework (see Appendix C for further discussion of each scopic levels (macro-submicro argument). Rarely did the class
sub-code). To establish a reliable application of the categories address only submicro ideas or all three levels of representation
in the IODM framework, two members of the research team simultaneously (macro-micro-symbolic arguments). Fig. 5 sum-
individually analyzed transcripts for three class periods, or marizes the prevalence of argument types in whole-class and
approximately 25% of the data set. Initial percent agreement small-group discussions. Note that for the purpose of our
between the two raters was 80% and all discrepancies between analysis, arguments including references to ‘‘other’’ informa-
the raters were reconciled through discussion. tion (such as system/surrounding distinctions or reversibility)
The final stage in our analysis was to map instructor in addition to macroscopic information were characterized as
discursive moves to representational levels in the class’s rea- macroscopic-only since our intent was to examine how the class
soning. We identified instructor discursive moves (if any) that coordinated information from the levels of the triplet relation-
corresponded to argument-types in order to examine the extent ship. We did not include arguments that addressed only ‘‘other’’
to which instructor-facilitated arguments addressed levels of information in Fig. 5, though these constituted approximately
the triplet relationship. 7.5% of total arguments.
As illustrated by Fig. 5, the focus group constructed a higher
proportion of symbolic-only arguments (49% of arguments in
Findings small-group work versus 33% in whole-class discussion). The
focus group also made fewer references to the submicro level
Our goal in this analysis was to identify ways in which instructor overall (8% of small group arguments, versus 22% in whole
facilitation, in an undergraduate POGIL physical chemistry class, class discussion).
contributed to reasoning with macroscopic, submicroscopic, and Upon examining argument types by class period, it became
symbolic levels of representation. To begin our discussion, we clear that the nature of the content covered in whole-class
describe the prevalence of macro, submicro, and symbolic ideas discussions had influenced students’ use of representational
in whole-class discussion and small-group activity. In particular, levels. For instance, on the first day of data collection the
we observed that small-group discussions were considerably class discussed the macroscopic constructs of work and heat
more focused on symbolic-level reasoning than was whole-class transfer. The resulting whole-class discussion was entirely
discussion. Overall, small-group reasoning included very few macroscopic. In contrast, on the final day of data collection,
appeals to submicroscopic ideas. As we will illustrate, the higher in which the class discussed Gibbs’ energy, a more abstract
prevalence of symbolic-only arguments in small-group discussion concept, the class’s reasoning was predominantly symbolic
is the product of multiple factors, including students’ difficulties in both small-group and whole-class discussions. Fig. 6 sum-
in coordinating all three types of information, and the supportive marizes the prevalence of argument types by class period.
role of some instructor facilitation strategies in whole-class While small-group discussions generally mirrored trends in
conversation. whole-class discussion, there were some noticeable differences.
In the second part of our discussion, we review our analysis For instance, our focus group addressed submicroscopic ideas
of instructor discursive strategies and their role in supporting during only four class periods, but whole-class discussion
the class’s reasoning with macroscopic, submicroscopic, and addressed the submicroscopic during 11 class periods. This
symbolic representations. We show a pattern of interaction that observation is consistent with our finding that overall, the
supports ‘‘connected’’ reasoning, that is, reasoning that expli- focus group addressed the submicroscopic level less often than
citly interprets information at multiple levels of the chemistry the whole class did.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 | 775
View Article Online
Fig. 5 Percentage of whole class arguments (N = 114) and small group arguments (N = 128) and level of representation addressed over the entirety of
the data collection period.
776 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015
View Article Online
identify that a positive value of DrH1 indicated an endothermic because this was not part of the question prompt. In contrast,
reaction or evaluate whether the value would be considered critical-thinking questions that asked students to explain their
reasonable for this system. This is not surprising given reasoning did typically elicit more discussion of relationships
that they were not explicitly asked to do so by the question between macroscopic-, submicroscopic-, and symbolic-level
prompt. ideas. However, even in arguments that appealed to multiple
The whole-class discussion that followed centered largely on aspects of the triplet relationship, there was evidence that
the reasonableness of the answer rather than the procedure students struggled to make appropriate connections among
used to obtain the value (Fig. 8). The instructor initiated whole- these levels. Consider, for example, the focus group’s discus-
class discussion by asking, ‘‘What is the heat of reaction?’’ sion of a critical-thinking question on enthalpy (Fig. 9).
Carrie, the designated spokesperson for the focus group on that Students were asked to predict the change that would occur
day, shared their value of DrH1 for reaction 1. The instructor in the volume of the cylinder if two different reactions were
briefly explained to the class how this value could be obtained, carried out. The group’s reasoning appealed to both macro-
commenting, ‘‘If I leave my 285.83 and I add the other reaction, scopic and symbolic ideas.
so this is for going from H2O liquid to H2O gas,’’ as she wrote Adam initiated the group’s discussion by asserting that the
the solution on the board. She then prompted the class to piston would ‘‘move less’’ than it would during the reaction
Published on 09 July 2015. Downloaded on 10/4/2018 2:33:15 AM.
characterize the reaction as endothermic or exothermic, essen- included in Model 2. His contributions suggest that he inter-
tially asking them to use Carrie’s calculated value of DrH1 to preted DrH o 0 as meaning that heat is transferred from the
make a new claim about the meaning of the value at the system to the surroundings. Since he believed heat would
macroscopic level. be ‘‘released’’ from the system to the surroundings, Adam predicted
Here, the instructor re-framed the class’s discussion of the
POGIL workbook exercise, priming them to consider whether
the reaction would be considered endothermic or exothermic in
addition to thinking about how the value could be obtained.
She also pushed the class to consider the appropriateness
of the calculated quantity, a feature that was not an explicit
component in the workbook, by asking, ‘‘Does this make
sense?’’ In elaborating on Tom’s contribution, the instructor
also affirmed Tom’s statement that ‘‘it takes energy to go from
water to water vapor’’. In particular, she added that water
molecules in the gas phase are ‘‘more excited,’’ a statement
we interpreted as addressing molecular-level motion or energy.
The overall argument constructed by the class (Fig. 8) provides
a model of how to connect macroscopic, submicroscopic, and
symbolic information in order to evaluate the reasonableness
of a calculated quantity.
In the previous example the small group did not consider on
their own what a macroscopic quantity meant, in large part
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 | 777
View Article Online
778 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015
View Article Online
instead used the ideal gas law, PV = nRT, to predict the piston’s
Fig. 13 Whole class macroscopic-symbolic argument in response to behavior. Since the focus group struggled to relate the question to
critical thinking question in Fig. 9.
other macroscopic constructs such as heat and temperature, it is
not clear whether the relationship of work to change in volume
terms of the components of Toulmin’s model of argumentation would have been obvious to all students.
in Fig. 13. Though both whole-class and small-group arguments in this
Returning to the prompt for Question 13, the instructor example addressed both macro and symbolic levels, it is clear
questioned the class again: ‘‘So, we might think there’d be that the two types of discussion played very different roles in
more expansion, but what did we set up in our experimental supporting students’ reasoning. Small group work served as a
conditions?’’ To which another student, Marie, responded, space where students could engage in more in-depth discus-
‘‘The temperature’s constant.’’ Expanding on Marie’s idea that sion of mathematical procedures, terminology, and meaning of
temperature would be held constant by the water bath, the mathematical symbolism, while whole-class discussion served
instructor elaborated, saying that the water bath would absorb as a space in which the instructor could model discipline-
the heat released by the reaction. She also noted that since the appropriate reasoning. An important role of the instructor in
number of moles was the same in each of the two scenarios, the this exchange was to direct the class to consider the relevance
only thing that would affect the amount of work done would of a particular piece of evidence that the focus group had
be a temperature change. Since temperature would be held overlooked. That is, she directed the class to consider the
constant by the water bath, no work or change in volume could impact of the constant-temperature water bath, a macroscopic
take place. The class’s reasoning is summarized in Fig. 14. constraint on the system. By elaborating on student contribu-
Interestingly, in this exchange the instructor framed move- tions, she modeled an appropriate interpretation of the symbolic
ment of the piston as a function of the work done by the system. representation DrH o 0, an expression that had been challenging
She did not explicitly reference the mathematical relationship for the focus group.
between work and change in volume (w = PDV), but rather used In whole-class discussion, instructor facilitation contributed
a qualitative statement of the relationship between work and to greater elaboration of relationships among macro, submicro,
change in volume. Given that a previous question asked students and symbolic-level information than typically occurred in small
to predict the sign of work involved in an expansion, it seems group reasoning. In the next section, we discuss the prevalence
plausible that she might have believed this information to be and role of particular instructor facilitation strategies in sup-
understood by all members of the class. However, the focus porting the class’s reasoning with macro, submicro, and
group did not consider the role of work in this process and symbolic ideas.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 | 779
View Article Online
Prevalence of inquiry-oriented discursive moves in whole-class particular aspect of the problem. In response to this question,
discussion Tom predicted that work has been done by the system once the
To address our second research question (What role do instruc- system was heated and that the height of the piston had
tor discursive strategies play in supporting the class’s efforts to increased by a distance, h. He did not immediately provide
coordinate macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels?) evidence for his assertion.
we used the inquiry-oriented discursive moves (IODM) frame- While the evaluating move was useful in checking whether
work to characterize the instructor facilitation strategies in students could make an appropriate prediction, explaining and
whole-class discussion. In the following section, we illustrate justifying questions were more useful in eliciting student
the role played by each type of facilitation strategy in the IODM reasoning. Explaining questions aimed at broadly eliciting
framework. We then discuss patterns in instructor facilitation student reasoning, however tentative (e.g. ‘‘Ok, so what are
and its role in supporting students’ reasoning with macro- some first impressions? You don’t have to be right. Just kind of
scopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic ideas. Code definitions what are your first impressions about what’s going on here.’’).
and examples of each move in the IODM framework (including Justifying questions were more targeted than evaluating ques-
managing) are included in the appendices. tions in that they typically required students to provide evi-
Questioning/requesting. As shown in Fig. 15, the most dence and reasoning for an assertion. That is, the instructor
Published on 09 July 2015. Downloaded on 10/4/2018 2:33:15 AM.
prevalent instructor facilitation strategy was questioning/ used justifying questions to elicit data, warrants, and backings
requesting. For brevity, we refer to this move as ‘‘questioning’’ for student-generated claims. Fig. 17 illustrates a typical justify-
in the remainder of our discussion. Overall, questioning ing question in which the instructor asked a student (Tom) to
accounted for 43% of instructor discursive moves in whole- provide evidence for his assertion that work would be done by
class discussion. the system.
780 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015
View Article Online
Telling moves. The telling move was the third most com- Overall, the QRE pattern of instructor discursive moves co-
monly used instructor discursive move (23% of instructor occurred with the majority of arguments that addressed two or
moves in whole class discussion). Most commonly, telling more levels of representation (68%).
moves were used to answer a student’s questions or to evaluate To illustrate this pattern, consider the class’s reasoning about a
directly the appropriateness of a student’s response (telling/ critical thinking question from a unit on heat capacity as summar-
responding move). For example, during a discussion about ized in Fig. 20. Arrows indicate the sequential flow of conversation.
entropy, a student (Andrea) said that she used the idea of
Published on 09 July 2015. Downloaded on 10/4/2018 2:33:15 AM.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 | 781
View Article Online
782 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015
View Article Online
Limitations
The findings reported here represent a case study of how one
instructor facilitated her class’s reasoning with macroscopic,
submicroscopic, and symbolic ideas via a post hoc analysis. It
must be noted that the ways in which students engage in
reasoning and argumentative practices are highly dependent
on classroom cultures and the ways in which instructors
facilitate classroom discourse (Berland, 2011). With that in
mind, we make no claims as to the representativeness of this
instructor’s approach to implementing the POGIL activities. In
our own research, we have collected similar data sets in a second
classroom with a different instructor and will report on a
comparison of reasoning across classrooms in a separate report.
A second limitation is that we characterized ideas that were
used in classroom reasoning but that were not closely aligned
Published on 09 July 2015. Downloaded on 10/4/2018 2:33:15 AM.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 | 783
View Article Online
explicit discussion of relationships among levels of representation. analysis using Sherin’s symbolic forms, Chem. Educ. Res.
In the QRE pattern, the instructor questioned students in order to Pract., 13, 209–220, DOI: 10.1039/C2RP00003B.
elicit their thinking and revoiced student contributions in order Becker N. M., Rasmussen C., Sweeney G., Wawro M., Towns M.
to translate across levels of representation. In contrast to other and Cole R. S., (2013), Reasoning using particulate nature of
patterns of facilitation, such as questioning alone or questioning matter: an example of a sociochemical norm in a university-
and telling, the use of revoicing enabled the instructor to level physical chemistry class, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14,
synthesize student contributions and build on student ideas 81–94, DOI: 10.1039/C2RP20085F.
while attributing ownership of the ideas to students. Bennett J. M. and Sözbilir M., (2007), A study of Turkish
Given these observations, we suggest that it is critical chemistry undergraduates’ understanding of entropy,
that learning environments provide explicit opportunities for J. Chem. Educ., 84, 1204, DOI: 10.1021/ed084p1204.
students to negotiate connections between domains of knowl- Berland L. K., (2011), Explaining variation in how classroom
edge. We consider this function of whole-class discussion to be communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation,
especially important because we observed instances in which J. Learn. Sci., 20, 625–664, DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2011.591718.
the small group occasionally focused exclusively on symbolic- Bowers J. S. and Nickerson S., (2001), Identifying cyclic patterns
level ideas or neglected to determine whether calculated of interaction to study individual and collective learning,
Published on 09 July 2015. Downloaded on 10/4/2018 2:33:15 AM.
answers’ made sense at the macroscopic and submicroscopic Math. Think. Learn., 3, 1–28, DOI: 10.1207/S15327833
levels. Many textbooks (and likely many faculty) seem to MTL0301_01.
assume that students will grasp the meanings of equations Carson E. and Watson J. R., (1999), Undergraduate students’
and variables and use them with proficiency after instructors understanding of enthalpy change, Univ. Chem. Educ., 3,
have presented or defined them once. Our analysis suggests 46–51.
that this is clearly not the case and that students require Cole R., Becker N. M., Towns M., Sweeney G., Wawro M. and
substantial support. Rasmussen C., (2012), Adapting a methodology from mathe-
matics education research to chemistry education research:
documenting collective activity, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 10,
Acknowledgements 193–211, DOI: 10.1007/s10763-011-9284-1.
Corbin J. and Strauss A., (2008), Basics of qualitative research:
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation
techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory,
under grants #0816792, #0817467, and #0816948. Any opinions,
3rd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
Derrick M. E. and Derrick F. W., (2002), Predictors of success in
this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily
physical chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 79, 1013, DOI: 10.1021/
reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We are
ed079p1013.
grateful for the contributions of Chris Rasmussen, Megan
Eberlein T., Kampmeier J., Minderhout V., Moog R. S., Platt T.,
Wawro, and George Sweeney, who played key roles in the
Varma-Nelson P. and White H. B., (2008), Pedagogies of
development of the methodologies and in inter-rater reliability
engagement in science: a comparison of PBL, POGIL, and
analysis for our work with Toulmin’s model of argumentation.
PLTL, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 36, 262–273, DOI: 10.1002/
We thank Jacob Byers for his assistance with inter-rater relia-
bmb.20204.
bility analyses. We also wish to thank the physical chemistry
Erduran S., Simon S. and Osborne J., (2004), TAPping into
students who took part in this study.
argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s
argument pattern for studying science discourse, Sci. Educ.,
88, 915–933, DOI: 10.1002/sce.20012.
References
Gabel D., (1999), Improving teaching and learning through
Ausubel D. P., (1963), The psychology of meaningful verbal chemistry education research: a look to the future,
learning, New York: Grune & Stratton. J. Chem. Educ., 76, 548, DOI: 10.1021/ed076p548.
Baddeley A., (2003), Working memory: looking back and looking Gillies A. P. R. M., (2008), Teachers’ and students’ verbal
forward, Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 4, 829–839, DOI: 10.1038/ behaviours during cooperative learning, in Gillies A. P. R.
nrn1201. M., Ashman P. A. F. and Terwel P. J. (ed.), The Teacher’s Role
Bain K., Moon A., Mack M. R. and Towns M. H., (2014), A review in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom,
of research on the teaching and learning of thermodynamics US: Springer, pp. 238–257.
at the university level, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 320–335, Hadfield L. C. and Wieman C. E., (2010), Student interpretations
DOI: 10.1039/C4RP00011K. of equations related to the First Law of Thermodynamic,
Becker N. M., (2012), Social aspects of classroom learning: results J. Chem. Educ., 87, 750–755, DOI: 10.1021/ed1001625.
of a discourse analysis in an inquiry-oriented physical chemistry Hahn K. E. and Polik W. F., (2004), Factors influencing success
class, Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, retrieved in physical chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 81, 567–572, DOI:
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3544338). 10.1021/ed081p567.
Becker N. M. and Towns M., (2012), Students’ understanding of Hernández G. E., Criswell B. A., Kirk N. J., Sauder D. G. and
mathematical expressions in physical chemistry contexts: an Rushton G. T., (2014), Pushing for particulate level models
784 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015
View Article Online
of adiabatic and isothermal processes in upper-level chemistry Nyachwaya J. M. and Wood N. B., (2014), Evaluation of chemical
courses: a qualitative study, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, representations in physical chemistry textbooks, Chem.
354–365, DOI: 10.1039/C4RP00008K. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 720–728, DOI: 10.1039/C4RP00113C.
Jaber L. Z. and BouJaoude S., (2012), A macro–micro–symbolic O’Connor M. C. and Michaels S., (1993), Aligning academic task
teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical and participation status through revoicing: analysis of a
reactions, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 34, 973–998, DOI: 10.1080/ classroom discourse strategy, Anthropol. Educ. Quart., 24,
09500693.2011.569959. 318–335.
Johnstone A. H., (1991), Why is science difficult to learn? O’Connor M. C. and Michaels S., (1996), Shifting participant
Things are seldom what they seem, J. Comput. Assist. Learn., frameworks: orchestrating thinking practices in group
7(2), 75–83, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x. discussion, in Discourse, learning, and schooling, London:
Justi R. S. and Gilbert J. K., (2002), Modelling, teachers’ views Cambridge University Press.
on the nature of modelling, and implications for the educa- Rasmussen C. and Stephan M., (2008), A methodology for
tion of modellers, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 24, 369–387, DOI: 10. documenting collective activity, in Kelly A. E. and Lesh R.
1080/09500690110110142. (ed.), Design research in education, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.
Kozma R. and Russell J., (2005), Students becoming chemists: 195–215.
Published on 09 July 2015. Downloaded on 10/4/2018 2:33:15 AM.
developing representational competence, in Gilbert J. K. Rasmussen C., Kwon O. and Marrongelle K., (2008), A framework
(ed.), Visualization in Science Education, Dordrecht, The for interpreting inquiry-oriented teaching, paper presented at the
Netherlands: Springer, pp. 121–145. Eleventh Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathe-
Kozma R., Chin E., Russell J. and Marx N., (2000), The roles of matics Education, San Diego, CA.
representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their Spencer J. N., Moog R. S. and Farrell J. J., (2004), Physical
implications for chemistry learning, J. Learn. Sci., 9, 105–143. chemistry: guided-inquiry thermodynamics, Boston, MA:
Kulatunga U. and Lewis J. E., (2013), Exploration of peer leader Houghton Mifflin.
verbal behaviors as they intervene with small groups in Stieff M., Ryu M. and Yip J. C., (2013), Speaking across levels –
college general chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14, generating and addressing levels confusion in discourse,
576–588, DOI: 10.1039/C3RP00081H. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14, 376–389, DOI: 10.1039/
Kulatunga U., Moog R. S. and Lewis J. E., (2013), Argumentation C3RP20158A.
and participation patterns in general chemistry peer-led Taber K. S., (2013), Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing
sessions, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 50, 1207–1231, DOI: 10.1002/ upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology
tea.21107. of learning to inform chemistry education, Chem. Educ. Res.
Levy S. T. and Wilensky U., (2009), Crossing levels and represen- Pract., 14, 156–168, DOI: 10.1039/C3RP00012E.
tations: the connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum, J. Sci. Talanquer V., (2011), Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many
Educ. Technol., 18, 224–242, DOI: 10.1007/s10956-009-9152-8. faces of the chemistry ‘‘triplet,’’ Int. J. Sci. Educ., 33, 179–195,
Lidar M., Lundqvist E. and Östman L., (2006), Teaching and DOI: 10.1080/09500690903386435.
learning in the science classroom: the interplay between Thomas P. L. and Schwenz R. W., (1998), College physical
teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical chemistry students’ conceptions of equilibrium and funda-
epistemology, Sci. Educ., 90, 148–163, DOI: 10.1002/sce. mental thermodynamics, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 35, 1151–1160.
20092. Toulmin S., (1958), The uses of argument, Cambridge, MA:
Mehan H., (1979), ‘‘What time is it, Denise?’’: asking known Cambridge University Press.
information questions in classroom discourse, Theory Pract., Tsaparlis G., (2007), Teaching and learning physical chemistry:
18, 285–294. a review of educational research, Advances in Teaching
Moog R. S. and Spencer J. N., (2008), POGIL: an overview, in Physical Chemistry, Washington, DC: American Chemical
Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), American Society, vol. 10, pp. 75–112.
Chemical Society, vol. 994, pp. 1–13, DOI: 10.1021/bk-2008- Tsaparlis G. and Finlayson O. E., (2014), Physical chemistry
0994.ch001. education: its multiple facets and aspects, Chem. Educ. Res.
Nicoll G. and Francisco J. S., (2001), An investigation of the Pract., 15, 257–265, DOI: 10.1039/C4RP90006E.
factors influencing student performance in physical chemistry, Vygotsky L., (1978), in Cole M., John-Steiner V., Scribner S. and
J. Chem. Educ., 78, 99–102, DOI: 10.1021/ed078p99. Souberman, E., (ed.), Mind in society: the development of
Nilsson T. and Niedderer H., (2014), Undergraduate students’ higher psychological processes, 14th edn, Cambridge, MA:
conceptions of enthalpy, enthalpy change and related con- Harvard University Press.
cepts, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 336–353, DOI: 10.1039/ Warfa A.-R. M., Roehrig G. H., Schneider J. L. and Nyachwaya J.,
C2RP20135F. (2014), Role of teacher-initiated discourses in students’
Novak J. D., (2002), Meaningful learning: the essential factor for development of representational fluency in chemistry: a case
conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional study, J. Chem. Educ., 91, 784–792, DOI: 10.1021/ed4005547.
hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners, Sci. Educ., Wenger E., (1998), Communities of practice: learning, meaning,
86, 548–571, DOI: 10.1002/sce.10032. and identity, New York: Cambridge University Press.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2015, 16, 769--785 | 785