The researcher wrote a proposal along with one of her committee members, a chemistry professor, and sent it via email to departmental faculty who taught general chemistry. Faculty replied favorably, and the researcher selected a faculty member based on the fact that they taught 2 sections of the same course. The researcher met with the
professor of the course at the end of the fall semester and again before the start of the spring term to discuss her research and to go over the pre-test. Next the researcher met with the laboratory coordinator to discuss the location and timing of the intervention activities during the students’ laboratory period. The researcher was available for any questions and was not approached with concerns during the study.
2. Informed Consent
All students in both courses were informed orally and in writing about the study objectives, made aware of their voluntary participation, that they could choose not to participate without penalty, withdraw from the study at any time and confidentiality aspects; see informed consent form in Appendix L. Only students who signed and returned the informed consent form participated in the study.
Confidentiality
To ensure confidentiality of all written materials the researcher used pseudonyms and initials when referring to individual participants or their work. The researcher is aware that confidentiality is crucial in carrying out ethical research. She recognizes that “qualitative research is research in action and takes place in the field with real individuals living and working in the settings explored (Rossman and Rallis, 2012, pg. 73), and as such requires careful protection of participants confidentiality.
H. Researcher Profile
Throughout my growth as a teacher, particularly in the 90’s, I came to view constructivist learning as the best way to educate. This was primarily due to the connections I developed with my students, and through discussions with colleagues, which provided unequivocal evidence that performance on tests, quizzes and labs often
did not reflect true learning. Further from a graduate course that I took in Philosophies of Education, at the University of New Hampshire, I became further convinced of the obvious fact that educational practice needed to be learner centered not teacher centered. John Dewey’s emphasis on stimulating thoughts and questions in students rather than telling, which results in “smothering his intellectual interest and suppress his dawning effort at thought” (J. Dewey, 1926, Democracy and Education, p. 188) is key.
The researcher is herself an experienced chemical educator, her familiarity with the discipline facilitated her ability to recognize common patterns of learning, pinpoint unique ideas, note areas of confusion, and record important points that helped to discern the usefulness of the intervention. Allowing her to make informed next steps for effective spatial interventions.
CHAPTER IV RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the implementation of three intervention activities designed to develop students’ spatial skills in general chemistry. The results of the data gathered to investigate the effectiveness of this intervention are presented below. This chapter begins with a presentation of the quantitative results of the post-test,
including the effects seen by each successive intervention performed, and then moves through the themes identified based on the areas of skill development seen in the post- test. Each skill area that showed the experimental group scoring higher is developed and supported with results from the qualitative data in a manner that best addresses the research question. These areas are presented below in the following order: symmetry plane identification, visualization of molecules, and translation between 2D and 3D.
Note that all quotes and artifacts are representative for the topic for which they are presented.
A. Post-Test Results
The post-test scores, shown in Table 4.1, indicate a significant difference with the experimental group scoring higher in comparison to the control group with t (419) = 5.76, and p < 0.000. A Cohen’s d value of 0.56 confirms that the intervention had a moderate effect on the entire experimental group. This effect size needs to be considered in light of the fact that the experimental group was comprised of three groups of students each of whom participated to different extents in the intervention activities – participation in one, two or all three intervention activities. The research question can be best evaluated by comparing the results for the group of students who performed all three intervention
activities (n = 105) with those of the control group (n = 212), as shown in Table 4.2, for which t(315) = 6.36, and p < 0.000, and a Cohen’s d of 0.75 indicating an effect size that is very close to large (d = 0.80), because these students received the most training. Table 4.1 Post-Test Scores
Section N Mean Std Deviation p value
Experimental 209 7.28 2.56
Control 212 5.84 2.38
0.000
A one-way ANOVA was used to test for differences among the three spatial interventions and the control group. Student performance differed significantly across the three
interventions and the control group F(3, 410) = 15.29, p = .000. Tukey post-hoc comparisons of the four groups indicate that both students in the second intervention (M=7.34, 95% CI[6.59, 8.08]) and in the third intervention (M= 7.74, 95% CI[7.27, 8.21] had significantly higher performance than that of the control group (M=5.89, 95% CI[ 5.61, 6.24]), p = .001. While each group showed an increase in their mean score, the 105 students performing all three activities showed a 2-point increase in their mean score when compared to the control group. See Table 4.2. These results show that the
intervention activities were effective. Students in the experimental group scored higher on the post-test than the control group as a result of being engaged in repeated structured learning activities, allowing for greater skill acquisition.
Table 4.2 Post-Test Score by Intervention Experimental: Number of Interventions Total N Mean Standard Deviation Effect Size 1 32 6.75 2.05 2 50 7.34 2.60 3 105 7.74 2.46 d = 0.75 Control 212 5.84 2.38