Investigating Classroom Discourse in Active Learning Environments for Large Enrollment Chemistry Courses

Abstract

Several research studies have highlighted the positive effects that active learning may have on student engagement and performance. However, the influence of active learning strategies is mediated by several factors, including the nature of the learning environment, the cognitive level of in-class tasks, and the types of activities on which students work. These factors affect different dimensions of student engagement such as the nature of social processing in student groups, how knowledge is used and elaborated upon by students (knowledge dynamics), and the amount of student participation in group activities. In a collaborative investigation involving four universities in the United States (US), we explored the association between these different dimensions of student engagement and various factors affecting student work in five distinct general chemistry learning environments. In our first study, data analysis revealed a significant association between task cognitive level and student engagement. Retrieval tasks often led to a significantly higher number of instances of no interaction between students and individualistic work, and a lower number of knowledge construction and collaborative episodes with full student participation. Analysis tasks, on the other hand, were significantly linked to more instances of knowledge construction and collaboration with full group participation. Tasks at the comprehension level were distinctive in their association with more instances of knowledge application and multiple types of social processing. To better characterize the different factors that affect students’ cognitive and social engagement while working on in-class tasks, in a second study we took a closer look at students’ conversations during in-class activities to characterize typical discourse patterns and expressed chemical thinking in representative student groups in samples collected in five different learning environments across four universities. For this purpose, we adapted and applied a ‘Community of Learners’ (CoL) theoretical perspective to characterize group activity through the analysis of student discourse. Our findings made explicit the complexity of analyzing student engagement in large active learning environments where a multitude of variables can affect group work. These include, among others, group size, the cognitive level of the tasks, the type of cognitive activity that the tasks demand, and the motivation and willingness of students to substantively engage in disciplinary reasoning. Overall, the results of these two collaborative studies point to important considerations in the design and implementation of active learning environments that engage more students with chemical ideas at higher levels of reasoning. In a third investigation, we investigated how in-class resources affected student collaborative work. In this case, we focused on how the use of small portable whiteboards during group work affected student engagement. We paid attention to how the use of whiteboards affected social processing, knowledge dynamics, and student contributions during in-class tasks in a college general chemistry class. Our findings reveal significant differences in student engagement during activities in which whiteboards are used compared to those in which these tools are not used. Although the use of whiteboards correlated with more instances of knowledge construction, overall effects are mixed, as the use of whiteboards more frequently led groups to split in pairs in the observed class. Our results suggest that use of whiteboards should be carefully planned and managed by instructors to maximize benefits and reduce potential hindrances to collaborative work. Finally, in the fourth study summarized in this dissertation, we sought to characterize individual student engagement in mechanistic reasoning. The ability to build mechanistic explanations of natural phenomena is highly valued in all scientific disciplines, including chemistry. Here we summarize the results of a qualitative study designed to characterize the nature of the mechanistic explanations built by college General Chemistry students when analyzing a physical process involving energy transfer between parts of a system at different temperatures, and a chemical process involving energy transformation and transfer due to chemical bonding. Prior studies have mostly focus on eliciting "what" students think happens in terms of energy transfer when chemical bonds break or form (e.g., energy is absorbed or released) and in this investigation we provide insights into their reasoning about "how" and "why" it happens. Our findings reveal that many students struggle to build sound mechanistic explanations for energy transfer between objects at different temperatures and for energy transformation and transfer during the formation of chemical bonds.