I shared resources for remote chemistry teaching, like visualizations and simulations from the Open Science Laboratory. Given the current COVID-19 situation, I selected these resources without really thinking about their pedagogical value. In many ways, it feels like survival mode. If I were teaching in high school right now, my thought process would be to:
- transition students to online learning as soon as possible, check in with students through the transition
- design for safety and accessibility; we don’t know where our students are logging in from or if at all
- design for asynchronous learning and supplement with optional synchronous sessions
- re-design and re-think assessments for a fully online experience
You may have noticed that my order links to pedagogy and technology before examining content specific pedagogy. My approach hints at trying to defer addressing the chemistry content. I don’t think chemistry can be taught fully online and that simulations are poor substitutions and replacements for actual experiences. However, given the circumstances, simulations and technology are the best alternative for what we might normally do as a real classroom experience. I will examine the cognitive affordances of PhET and a virtual lab, make recommendations about the use of these tools in an online design, and make suggestions about the role of teachers and students.
Cognitive Affordances of PhET and virtual labs
As I was examining a PhET simulation for my discussion post, I was thinking to myself:
I don’t know if I would use this. It’s technically not realistic and it can introduce more misconceptions.
The specific PhET simulation I was looking at was on acids and bases. I liked that the simulation visualized the species in aqueous solution and showed the equilibrium concentrations. However, I couldn’t help but critique that:
- the simulation is inaccurate because the species are dynamic, students need to understand dynamic equilibrium
- although there’s a graph to show the the equilibrium concentrations, it has a logarithmic scale. I understand that this is for space saving, but if students do not read the scale and examine the graph solely on visuals, they will misunderstand the equilibrium concentrations
- solvent interactions are not shown
Going through the readings helped me recognize why these decisions were made and how they support the learning of acid and base solutions.
As Finkelstein et al (2005) explain, a simulation can be more effective than an actual lab because a simulation forces students into productive constraints. Given the nature and design of a simulation, students have a specific set of actions. Although this might not be realistic, the PhET video points out that this is aligned with cognitive science: we don’t want to cognitively overload the learner with information (PhET Simulations, 2013). Interestingly, it was denoted that having too much information at once makes learners become more passive; they begin to watch rather than interact (PhET Simulations, 2013). Hence the scaffolding provided from a simulation is in line with cognition and engages learners in constructing their learning based on the available variables. The simulations are not meant to be the only or primary example for students. Instead, they are an anchor point in the learning journey where students learn some part and when they develop an understanding, can proceed to the next layer of difficult.
This scaffolding and simplicity is in the acid base solution PhET. This particular simulation has an introduction and then a create your solution. In the introduction, learners begin to explore each of the key variables tied to type of species, strength, concentration, and pH. Explicitly learning the conventions for representation can help students unpack symbolic representations. Similar to how Edens & Potter (2008) examined visuals students created to unpack word problems, students may create graphical representations for acids and bases. Edens & Potter (2008) noted that schematic diagrams were more similar to what experts would create where the relevant data was mapped and expressed while pictorial diagrams were expressive and contained unnecessary information. From looking at the mental models for acids and bases in Barke et al (2009), this was similarly shown where students with lower understanding drew spheres without any semblance of what they represented in terms of the acid. In contrast, students with higher understanding used chemical formula (Barke et al, 2009).
In contrast to this PhET simulation, I didn’t find the Open Science Laboratory flame test lab as useful. I can understand that the simulation wanted students to understand the process of conducting a flame test, but it was a buggy set up. It could have been improved if there was more scaffolding, like an intro, to show the user the signals when a specific step was completed successfully. This could give better feedback and modelling about where the hottest part of the flame is and how to adjust the Bunsen burner. As is, the current flame test lab’s constraints are frustrating and not necessarily productive.
Recommendations for Classroom Use of PhET
Although PhET and other well designed simulations can be more effective than doing a physical lab, they cannot fully replace the learning of a real experience (Finkelstein et al, 2005). In terms of embodied learning, simulations should definitely be used in cases where the concepts cannot be experienced (Niebert et al, 2012). Like in the case of acids and bases, being able to change the parameters for key variables and observe what occurs at the molecular level is embodied.
Simulations can be used to help students visualize and interact with data. The conceptions they develop from this may be within the simulation’s constraints, but students should continue to engage in deeper learning once they have set up a foundational schema. In the acid and base PhET example, learning about the type of species, strength, concentration, and pH can address many misconceptions. There are purposeful constraints in the PhET design to force students to artificially examine these in a static environment. This manages the students’ cognitive load and facilitates their interaction with the variables. Once students have developed conceptions about these variables, dynamic equilibrium can be introduced.
Active Roles of the Teacher and Students
Based on the readings, I would suggest:
Teacher
- select a simulation based on misconceptions students commonly have about a the topic
- design a series of closed and open questions to stimulate student thinking
- closed questions: test for understanding
- open questions: encourage exploration, forming conclusions
- create opportunities for follow up after using the simulation
- include tasks that will have students visibly show their thinking, critique and correct misconceptions
- create follow up activities to address some of the visual limitations in the simulation
- highlight that scaffolding is being used
- model the visual conventions and schematic representations for the concepts
Students
- experiment with the simulation
- try to come up with conclusions on the behaviours of each of the variables
- participate in group discussions about the simulation and how it works
- reflect upon past and current understanding and how/why it has changed
If I were to go back and teach high school chemistry, I would love to have students work on simulations in small groups. In line with a mixed LfU and T-GEM model, students would seek to solve a problem, and work on making conclusions through this simulation. The process of knowledge construction and refinement would be supported by group activities.
References
Barke, H., Hazari, A., Yitbarek, S., & SpringerLink ebooks – Chemistry and Materials Science. (2009;2008;). Misconceptions in chemistry: Addressing perceptions in chemical education (1. Aufl. ed.). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70989-3
Edens, K., & Potter, E. (2008). How students “unpack” the structure of a word problem: Graphic representations and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 108(5), 184-196.
Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8.
Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory‐guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. doi: 10.1002/sce.21026
[PhET Simulations]. (2013, Jan 12). PhET: Research and Development [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/qdeHagIeyrc