Research Article

Practical problem-solving tasks for meaningful learning and retention in college chemistry for pre-service teachers

Vicente Callao Handa 1 * , Vivien M. Talisayon 2
More Detail
1 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Reich College of Education, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA2 Division of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, University of Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, PHILIPPINES* Corresponding Author
European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), October 2023, 702-716, https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13497
Published Online: 23 July 2023, Published: 01 October 2023
OPEN ACCESS   1239 Views   793 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the influence of practical problem-solving tasks (PPST) in promoting meaningful learning (ML) and retention in a nonlaboratory chemistry component of a physical science course for pre-service teachers (PSTs). It utilized a mixed-methods research using a modified quasi-experimental design followed by a detailed analysis of change in the conceptual understanding of case participants. The researcher employed mechanical and statistical matching to select 80 participants in two intact groups. The study’s findings revealed that using PPST as a mode of instruction significantly promoted ML and meaningful retention of chemistry concepts. The study generated patterns of explanation, patterns of change in the level of conceptual understanding, and patterns of regression in understanding. The study further argued that PSTs exposed to PPST experienced ML as evidenced by (1) the outcome–significant differences in performances in ML and meaningful retention tests, (2) the process–qualitative evidence of positive change in conceptual understanding, and (3) the context–use of PPST designed for PSTs to engage in a learning process meaningfully. This study called for further research on the inclusion of PPST in other nonlaboratory classes in chemistry and other science subjects, both at secondary and tertiary level.
Keywords: practical problem-solving tasks, meaningful learning, meaningful retention, teacher content knowledge, chemistry education

CITATION (APA)

Handa, V. C., & Talisayon, V. M. (2023). Practical problem-solving tasks for meaningful learning and retention in college chemistry for pre-service teachers. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 702-716. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13497

REFERENCES

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude,S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Mamlok-Naaman, R, Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
  2. Affriyenni, Y., Fitriyah, I. J., & Hamimi, E. (2023). Integrative online learning: The effectiveness of contextual problem-solving on wave and optics course. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2569(1), 060016. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0112699
  3. Anderson, R. C. (2018). Creative engagement: Embodied metaphor, the affective brain, and meaningful learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 12(2), 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12176
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046669
  5. Ausubel, D. P. (1961). The role of discriminality in meaningful verbal learning and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2(5), 266-274. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045701
  6. Ausubel, D. P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and retention. The Journal of General Psychology, 66(2), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1962.9711837
  7. Ausubel, D. P. (1967). A cognitive-structure theory of school learning. In L. Seigel (Ed.), Instruction. Some contemporary viewpoints. Chandler Publishing Company.
  8. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  9. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge. Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9454-7
  10. Ausubel, D. P. (2012). Reception learning and the rote-meaningful dimension. In E. Stones (Ed.), Readings in educational psychology (pp. 204-231). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807385-19
  11. Avena, J. S., McIntosh, B. B., Whitney, O. N., Wiens, A., & Knight, J. K. (2021). Successful problem-solving in genetics varies based on question content. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 20(4), ar51. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-01-0016
  12. Baptista, M., & Martins, I. (2023). Effect of a STEM approach on students’ cognitive structures about electrical circuits. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00393-5
  13. Berlinger, D. C. (1987). But do they understand? In V. R. Koehler (Ed.), Educator’s handbook: A research perspective. Longman.
  14. Blackie, M. A. (2022). Knowledge building in chemistry education. Foundations of Chemistry, 24(1), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-022-09419-w
  15. Bressington, D. T., Wong, W. K., Lam, K. K. C., & Chien, W. T. (2018). Concept mapping to promote meaningful learning, help relate theory to practice and improve learning self-efficacy in Asian mental health nursing students: A mixed-methods pilot study. Nurse Education Today, 60, 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.09.019
  16. Cavalcante, P., Newton, D., & Newton, L. (1997). The effects of various kinds of lesson on conceptual understanding in science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 5(2), 187-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514970150205
  17. Cavallao, A. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students’ understanding and problem-solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 625-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6<625::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-Q
  18. Cavas, B., Cavas, P., & Yilmaz, Y. O. (2023). Problem-solving in science and technology education. In B. Akpan, B. Cavas, & T. Kennedy (Eds.), Contemporary issues in science and technology education (pp. 253-265). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24259-5_18
  19. Chauke, B., & Goosen, L. (2022). Barriers to effective teaching and meaningful learning of science in rural disadvantaged schools: Designing strategies for Mopani District, Limpopo. In J. L. Ramos, & I. M. Gomez-Barreto (Eds.), Design and measurement strategies for meaningful learning (pp. 230-249). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9128-4.ch012
  20. Chi, S., Wang, Z., & Liu, X. (2023). Assessment of context-based chemistry problem-solving skills: Test design and results from ninth-grade students. Research in Science Education, 53(2), 295-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10056-8
  21. Chin C., & Chia, L.C. (2004). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20097
  22. Crotty, M. J. (2015). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE.
  23. Denney, N. W., Pearce, K. A., & Palmer, A. M. (1982). A developmental study of adults’ performance on traditional and practical problem-solving tasks. Experimental Aging Research, 8(2), 115-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610738208258407
  24. Dods, R (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in promoting acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 423-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329702000406
  25. Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon.
  26. Duarte-Herrera, M., Montalvo Apolín, D. E., & Valdes Lozano, D. E. (2019). Dispositional strategies and meaningful learning in virtual classrooms. Revista Educación [Education Magazine], 43(2), 468-483. https://doi.org/10.15517/revedu.v43i2.34038
  27. ElJishi, Z. S. (2023). Understanding how the brain relates scientific concepts and identifies misconceptions using concept maps. In Z. S. ElJishi (Ed.), New science of learning (pp. 230-245). Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004540767_012
  28. Ferreira, M., Olcina-Sempere, G., & Reis-Jorge, J. (2019). Teachers as cognitive mediators and promotors of meaningful learning. Revista Educación [Education Magazine], 43(2), 599-611. https://doi.org/10.15517/revedu.v43i2.37269
  29. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
  30. Galili, I. (2022). Scientific knowledge as a culture: A paradigm of knowledge representation for the meaningful teaching and learning of science. In I. Galili (Ed.), Scientific knowledge as a culture: The pleasure of understanding (pp. 245-275). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80201-1_6
  31. Gallagher, S. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it go from, what does it do, and where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 332-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329702000402
  32. Galloway, K. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2015). Measuring meaningful learning in the undergraduate general chemistry and organic chemistry laboratories: A longitudinal study. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(12), 2019-2030. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00754
  33. Galloway, K. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2016). Video episodes and action cameras in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory: Eliciting student perceptions of meaningful learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00196J
  34. George-Williams, S. R., Karis, D., Ziebell, A. L., Kitson, R. R., Coppo, P., Schmid, S., Thompson, C. D., & Overton, T. L. (2019). Investigating student and staff perceptions of students’ experiences in teaching laboratories through the lens of meaningful learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00188J
  35. Gijlers, H., & Jong, T. (2005).The relation between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 264-282. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20056
  36. Gil-Doménech, D., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2020). Making the learning of mathematics meaningful: An active learning experience for business students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(4), 403-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1711797
  37. Gupte, T., Watts, F. M., Schmidt-McCormack, J. A., Zaimi, I., Gere, A. R., & Shultz, G. V. (2021). Students’ meaningful learning experiences from participating in organic chemistry writing-to-learn activities. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(2), 396-414. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00266F
  38. Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic modeling for meaningful learning of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 1019-1041. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199611)33:9<1019::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-I
  39. Hattan, C., Alexander, P. A., & Lupo, S. M. (2023). Leveraging what students know to make sense of texts: What the research says about prior knowledge activation. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221148478
  40. He, X., Fang, J., Cheng, H. N., Men, Q., & Li, Y. (2023). Investigating online learners’ knowledge structure patterns by concept maps: A clustering analysis approach. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11633-8
  41. Head, J. O., & Sutton, C. R. (1984). Language, understanding, and commitment. In L. H. West, & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change. Academic Press.
  42. Healy, V. (1989). The effects of advance organizer and prerequisite knowledge passages on the learning and retention of science concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(7), 627-644. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260707
  43. Hodson, D. (1992). Assessment of practical work: Some considerations in philosophy of science. Science & Education, 1, 115-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00572835
  44. Imam, B. T., Olorundare, A. S., & Upahi, J. E. (2022). Effects of graphic organizers on conceptual understanding in organic chemistry. Aquademia, 6(1), ep22003. https://doi.org/10.21601/aquademia/12055
  45. Jeet, G., & Pant, S. (2023). Creating joyful experiences for enhancing meaningful learning and integrating 21st century skills. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 6(2), 900-903. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i2-05
  46. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
  47. Kostiainen, E., Ukskoski, T., Ruohotie-Lyhty, M., Kauppinen, M., Kainulainen, J., & Mäkinen, T. (2018). Meaningful learning in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.009
  48. La’Keisha, D. N. (2018). Students’ perceptions of school connectedness at a freshman academy [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University-Lynchburg].
  49. Lawson, B. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Wadsworth.
  50. Leijon, M., Gudmundsson, P., Staaf, P., & Christersson, C. (2022). Challenge-based learning in higher education–A systematic literature review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(5), 609-618. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1892503
  51. Li, X., Li, Y., & Wang, W. (2023). Long-lasting conceptual change in science education: The role of U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue in collaborative argumentation. Science & Education, 32(1), 123-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00288-x
  52. Ligabo, M., Silva, F. C., da SA Carvalho, A. C., Rodrigues Jr, D., & Rodrigues, R. C. (2023). Practical way to apply fourth-generation assessment tools integrated into creating meaningful learning experiences in biology at high school. Evaluation and Program Planning, 96, 102155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102155
  53. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4
  54. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  55. Monereo, C., & Perez, M. L. (1996). The incidence of note-taking on meaningful learning: A study in higher education. Infancia-y-Apredizaje [Childhood-and-Learning], 30, 65-86. https://doi.org/10.1174/02103709660560555
  56. Nichols, M., & Cator, K. (2008). Challenge-based learning white paper. Apple, Inc. https://www.apple.com/ca/education/docs/NMC_CBLi_Report_Oct_2011.pdf
  57. Nieme, D. (1996). Assessing conceptual understanding in mathematics: Representations, problem solutions, justifications, and explanations. Journal of Educational Research, 89(6),351-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1996.9941339
  58. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10),937-949. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660271003
  59. Novak, J. D. (1993). How do we learn our lesson: Taking students through process. Science Teaching, 6(3), 50-55.
  60. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548-571. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10032
  61. Okebukola, P. A. (1990). Attaining meaningful learning of concepts in genetics and ecology: An examination of the potency of the concept‐mapping technique. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 493-504. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270508
  62. Okebukola, P. A., & Jegede, O. J. (1988). Cognitive preferences and learning mode as determinants of meaningful learning through concept mapping. Science Education, 70(5), 849-500. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720408
  63. Okukawa, H. (2008). If your learning experience is meaningful for you, how have you been constructing that meaning? A study of adult learners in Bangkok. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 4(1) 46-61
  64. Oladejo, A. I., Okebukola, P. A., Olateju, T. T., Akinola, V. O., Ebisin, A., & Dansu, T. V. (2022). In search of culturally responsive tools for meaningful learning of chemistry in Africa: We stumbled on the culturo-techno-contextual approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(8), 2919-2931. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00126
  65. Onowugbeda, F. U., Okebukola, P. A., Agbanimu, D. O., Ajayi, O. A., Oladejo, A. I., Awaah, F., Ademola, I. A., Gbeleyi, O. A., Peter, E. O., & Ige, A. M. (2022). Can the culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) promote students’ meaningful learning of concepts in variation and evolution? Research in Science & Technological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2084060
  66. Raven, S., & Wenner, J. A. (2022). Science at the center: Meaningful science learning in a preschool classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(30), 449-677. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21807
  67. Rice, G., & Sianjina, R. (1995). Teaching that encourages meaningful retention. International Forum for Logotherapy: Journal of Meaning, 18(2), 83-86.
  68. Rivera, L. M. V., & Pérez, I. R. Q. (2023). Preservice teachers’ meaningful science learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 52(3), 26-31.
  69. Rizaldi, D. R., & Fatimah, Z. (2023). Efforts to create an interesting and meaningful physics learning environment with a project-based learning model. AMPLITUDO: Journal of Science and Technology Innovation, 2(1), 7-13. https://doi.org/10.56566/amplitudo.v1i1.3
  70. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  71. Skolnik, S. (1995). Launching interest in chemistry. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 34-36.
  72. Sobral, D. T. (1995). The problem-based approach as an enhancement factor on personal meaningfulness of learning. Higher Education, 29(1), 9 -101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384243
  73. States, N., Stone, E., & Cole, R. (2023). Creating meaningful learning opportunities through incorporating local research into chemistry classroom activities. Education Sciences, 13(2), 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020192
  74. Syifa, A., Putra, N. M. D., Darsono, T., & Rohim, A. M. (2023). Changes in students’ cognitive structure on the concept of diffraction and light interference using PhET virtual simulation. Physics Education Research Journal, 5(1), 29-34.
  75. Toh, K. A. (1993). Gender and practical tasks in science. Educational Research, 35(3), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188930350304
  76. Treagust, D. F., Won, M., & Duit, R. (2014). Paradigms in science education research. In N. Lederman, & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 17-31). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267
  77. Turan-Oluk, N. (2023). Pre-service chemistry teachers’ knowledge of the coordination number and the oxidation number in coordination compounds. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24, 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00197G
  78. Vergara, D., Extremera, J., Rubio, M. P., & Dávila, L. P. (2019). Meaningful learning through virtual reality learning environments: A case study in materials engineering. Applied Sciences, 9(21), 4625. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9214625
  79. Wu, N., Kubo, T., Hall, A. O., Zurcher, D. M., Phadke, S., Wallace, R. L., & McNeil, A. J. (2019). Adapting meaningful learning strategies to teach liquid–liquid extractions. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(1), 80-86. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00717
  80. Zohar, A. (1996). Transfer and retention of reasoning strategies taught in biological contexts. Research in Science and Technological Education, 14(2), 205-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514960140207