1
The Effects ofInquiry-Based Activities on Attitudes and Conceptual
Understanding of Stoichiometric Problem Solving in
High School Chemistry
by
Lori A. Pedretti
A Research Paper
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Master of Science Degree
In
Education
AnDroved: 2 Semester Credits
~~~;~~f\~~~~'
Dr. Kay Lehmann
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
May, 2010
2
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI
Author:
Pedretti, Lori A.
Title:
Tlte Effects of Inquiry-Based Activities on Attitudes and Conceptual
Understanding of Stoichiometric Problem Solving in High School
Chemistry
Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Education
Research Adviser:
Kay Lehmann, Ph.D.
MonthrYear:
May, 2010
Number of Pages:
44
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6 th edition
Abstract
Science standards call for the implementation of inquiry-based science education in our
schools (NRC, 2000). This study investigated the use of an inquiry-based activity and its effect
on students' attitudes and conceptual understanding of stoichiometric mass-mole problem solving
in a high school chemistry class. Students involved in this study (N=50) were all eleventh
graders enrolled in a full year of regular chemistry. The control group of24 students received
instruction using a traditional method of teaching, and the treatment group of26 students were
given the same content using inquiry-based activities. A post-test assessed student achievement,
and an attitude survey evaluated students' opinions of the instructional methods used. The
results of this study concluded that there was no significant difference of student achievement
level between the two groups. However, it was determined that students' attitudes toward mole
calculations improved after using an inquiry-based activity.
3
Table of Contents
Page
2
Abstract
Chapter 1: Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Introduction ......................................................
5
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Research Questions
6
...............................................
Assumptions
6
Methodology
7
Definition of Terms ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Chapter II: Review of Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
10
Chapter III: Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
31
Introduction ......................................................
31
Research Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..
31
Population and Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
31
Instrumentation
32
Data Collection
32
Data Analysis
....................................................
33
Chapter IV: Results
34
Introduction
34
Student Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...
34
Figure 1: Student Achievement. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...
34
Student Attitude
36
Table 1: Attitude Survey
36
4
Chapter V: Discussion ........................ . ........................ . .
38
Summary ............................. . ..........................
38
Conclusions ......................................................
39
Recommendations ...................... .. .........................
40
References .............................................................
41
Appendix A: Mole Chemistry Test ............................................ 47
Appendix B: Attitude Survey ................................................. 48
5
Chapter I: Introduction
Nationwide, high schools are requiring two years of science instruction, and most postsecondary programs require high school graduates to successfully complete one full year of
chemistry as well. As this prerequisite for entry into universities has become more prevalent, the
percentage of students enrolling in high school chemistry courses has increased to 63% of all
high school students (Roehrig & GalTow, 2007). Because of these requirements and the difficult
concepts that a chemistry cUlTiculum often presents, it is imperative that high schools provide
avenues for students to meet the challenge of gaining these skills and develop positive attitudes
toward the process of acquiring these skills.
In order to engage students in an active learning process and provide enhanced
oppOltunities for gaining skills, the traditional style of lecture and discussion may need to
undergo some changes. Kinesthetic activities are successful in that students use multiple
learning skills to construct meaning and knowledge (Appalachia Educational Lab, 2005). As
opposed to passive learning that takes place with a lecture-style approach, hands-on learning
encourages active involvement in chemistry activities and enhances the students' abilities to
increase learning and achievement.
Providing students with instruction utilizing hands-on instruction may improve student
engagement to deepen the students' conceptual understanding and attitude toward difficult
chemistry concepts. The students can feel a sense of accomplishment and be empowered in their
own leml1ing process when they understand a concept through their own hands-on experience.
Students may benefit from mUltiple, differentiated opportunities to absorb knowledge and create
meaningful experiences.
6
Statement of the Problem
Students can find working with stoichiometric calculations difficult and frustrating to
understand. With enough practice, they can memorize a pattern to complete the calculations but
have a difficult time understanding the concept, quickly losing their enthusiasm to work with
these calculations. Using a hands-on approach through an inquiry-based activity, students can
physically measure samples that demonstrate the quantity of a 'mole', which is a needed concept
in the mass-mole calculations of a chemical reaction. When students are able to work with a
physical sample, they are in a better position to make a connection and have a conceptual
understanding of stoichiometric calculations. In this manner, students may develop a positive
attitude toward a learning process that is more than rote memorization. The purpose of this study
is to examine the use of an inquiry-based activity and its effect on students' attitudes and the
conceptual understanding of stoichiometric mass-mole problem solving in a high school
chemistry class.
Research Questions
The specific research questions for this study are:
1. How does the inquiry-based activity of working mass-mole calculations relate to the
attitudes of chemistry students at Prescott High School?
2. Do chemistry students at Prescott High School who learn mass-mole calculations with the
support of an inquiry-based activity display an increased conceptual understanding
compared to those students who follow a traditional style of lecture?
Assumptions
The first assumption of this study is all students enrolled in chemistry at Prescott High
School will pmiicipate and will not be absent on the days the study is conducted . The second
7
assumption is students will participate to the best of their ability with the inquiry activity and on
assessment day . The third assumption is students will feel confident working in the lab. They
have experience working in the chemistry lab and have used the equipment and glassware
needed for this study.
Methodology
The design of the study is a quasi-experimental posttest-only. The control group will be
introduced to the mole concept and mass-mole calculations using a traditional style of lecturediscussion. The treatment group will be introduced to the mole concept and mass-mole
calculations through an inquiry-based activity where students will create tangible molar samples
to help students grasp the mole concept. A posttest will measure the conceptual understanding of
stoichiometric mass-mole calculations and an attitude survey administered to the treatment group
at the end of the study will determine the students' general feelings toward the learning process.
Definition of Terms
Stoichiometry: Stoichiometry stems from the Greek word stoicheion, meaning element,
and the English suffix -metry, meaning to measure, and it is one of the hardest concepts for high
school students to understand (Wolf, 2007). Stoichiometric calculations can be used in the
prediction of how much of a substance will react or be produced in a chemical reaction. The
amount of substance is expressed as a number of moles or mass. In calculating moles, students
must have prior knowledge of structure of the atom, nomenclature, chemical reactions, and
conversions (Wolf, 2007; Cook & Cook, 2005; Tingle & Good, 1990). The 'mole' is a
convenient quantity with which to work. It represents Avogadro ' s number (6.022 x 10 23 ) of
atoms, ions, or molecules in a 'mole' of a substance. The mass (grams) of a substance can be
determined in a lab, but the mole calculations are needed for stoichiometry. When one is
8
convelting between grams and moles, the molecular mass is always the number of grams equal
to one mole (Deters, 2009).
Traditional instructional methods: Traditional methods of instruction in a high school
chemistry classroom typically include teacher lecture and student note taking. Lecturing is an
effective teaching method that expedites the process of disseminating and explaining large
amounts of information while simultaneously providing them with an oppOltunity to keep a
record (notes) of that information from which to study. However, a traditional style of teaching
in chemistry can result in delivering too much information in a short period of time, which can
decrease students' ability to absorb information. With the traditional method of introducing the
'mole' concept, the instructor describes the definition of a 'mole' using Avogadro's number,
which defines the number of molecules in a 'mole', and gram molecular weights. This style of
teaching can delivery content, but it allows for very little discussion of underlying concepts that
would help connect conceptual understanding to real-life situations. Traditional methods of
instruction have an important role in teaching chemistry, but this method can be enhanced with
hands-on learning through inquiry-based activities.
Hands-on learning: Hands-on learning is defined as "engaging in in-depth
investigations with objects, materials, phenomena, ideas and drawing meaning and
understanding from those experiences" (Haury, 1994, p. 4). A hands-on approach requires
students to become active participants rather than passive learners in a lecture model. Engaging
in laboratory experiments, making models, and creating individual and group projects are all
examples of hands-on activities. Students who are actively engaged in manipulating materials
are gaining increased knowledge and understanding. When utilizing an inquiry-based activity,
9
students are immersed in the process of learning and applying skills through an inquiry approach
(Yager, 2009).
Inquiry-based activity: Inquiry-based activities are simply those educational
0ppOitunities that enable students to investigate an idea or concept. These oppOitunities allow
students greater potential to develop an understanding of the investigation. The students are then
better equipped to obtain interpretable data from which they can generate a concept (Deming &
Cracolice,2009). In this study, students are provided access to the laboratory where they can
measure the mass and compare the sample size of one 'mole' of common everyday materials.
Student engagement: Student engagement is the students' willingness to pmticipate in
their learning experience. Student engagement includes active palticipation in class, motivation,
conceptual understanding, and academic achievement. Students are exposed to various teaching
practices, which may impact their willingness to engage and participate in a class. This study
will focus on the use of the inquiry-based activity to help capture students' enthusiasm and
increase the opportunities to engage in their leaming experience.
Constructivism: Constructivism is a theory of learning by Jean Piaget. According to
Piaget (1970), "human knowledge is essentially active" (p. 15), and one would have to take
reality into a series of transformations from one state of thinking to another. Understanding
comes from acting upon something. True learning comes from constructing "systems of
transformations" (p. 15), which would involve moving from one state of thinking to another.
Constructivism is applying knowledge of real-life situations such as those experienced in an
inquiry-based activity as opposed to regurgitating memorized facts without the ability to analyze
or apply that information.
10
Chapter II: Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to examine the use of an inquiry-based activity and its effect
on the conceptual understanding of the mass-mole concept that is needed in stoichiometric
problem solving in a high school chemistry class, as well as the students' attitudes toward this
method of instruction. Inquiry-based activities are used in many disciplines and classrooms.
This literature review will provide the theoretical framework, examine fundamental aspects of
stoichiometry, and introduce the components of an inquiry-based activities and how they are
used effectively.
Theoretical Frameworl{
The use of student inquiry (in this particular study, a high school science class) has a
theoretical foundation on the work of John Dewey and Jean Piaget. Piaget developed
groundbreaking theories about leaming and helped develop the theory of constructivism in the
classroom, both of which highly influence inquiry. In the early 1900's, John Dewey made bold
assertions and advisements about the structure of the educational system, specifically about the
roles of the students and teachers in the classroom.
Constructivism, as developed by Jean Piaget, is applying knowledge from real-life
situations to new experiences. According to constructivist theory, the simple memorization of
basic facts without the oppOltunity to analyze or apply the facts does not constitute true learning
(Piaget, 1970). According to Cracolice, Deming, & Ehlert (2008), "Individuals shucture their
lmowledge uniquely, yet there is a common process by which human lmowledge develops," (p.
873). Palt of this process is developing the ability to reason systematically using observable
information to apply the knowledge gained; these skills allow students to obtain a better
understanding. According to Applefield, Huber, & Moallem (2001), "Constructivism proposes
11
that learners' conceptions of knowledge are derived from a meaning-making search in which
learners engage in a process of constructing individual interpretations of their experiences" (p.
36).
According to Piaget (2007), the individual has two processes of thinking, figurative
aspects and operative. The figurative process refers primarily to imitation and repetition based
on memory. Operative is the transformation of knowledge based on new experiences. Piaget
asserts that for the intellectual development of the individual, operative learning is preferred
(Piaget, 1970).
Piaget's work established two principles, adaptation and organization, to learning and
development. Individuals must adapt to changes in their intellectual or physical environment by
assimilating and accommodating these changes. Each individual will uniquely assimilate, or
relate, new information so that the individual's brain can uniquely adapt and create a spot in
memory for the information (Suaalii & Bhattacharya, 2007). As an individual grows and
matures, both intellectually and physically, the brain accommodates these changes.
Fundamentally, this means that each person acquires, stores, and organizes new
information in a manner that is based on personal experiences; therefore, each person will
express that acquisition of learned material in a process that is wholly individual. The individual
will have little ability to associate a formula or equation against existing knowledge.
Subsequently, experiencing and constructing the formula would be more easily assimilated into
active knowledge than utilizing a prescribed formula (Suaalii & Bhattacharya, 2007).
This idea was described by Piaget in the Woodridge Lectures delivered at Columbia
University in 1968, in which he stated:
12
Human knowledge is essentially active. To know is to assimilate reality
into systems of transformations. To know is to transform reality in order to
understand how a certain state is brought about. .. To my way of thinking,
knowing an object does not mean copying it- it means acting upon it. It
means constructing systems of transformations that can be calTied
out. .. Knowledge, then, is a system of transformations that become
progressively adequate. (Piaget, 1970, p. 15)
Constructivism is rooted in the belief that students construct their learning based on their
experiences. It is not pedagogy, but rather a series of observations that explain behavior.
Inquiry, however, takes the observations of constructivism and makes a prescription for how
students would learn best (McDonald, Criswell, & Dreon, 2008). Inquiry takes the constructivist
assumption that individuals construct knowledge and information from their learning
environment; with that assumption, the need to alter the traditional learning environment would
follow (NRC, 2000).
Piaget discussed in depth the advantages of being actively engaged in learning. He
applied the example of an infant's stages of development, which occur well before the
acquisition of language. A baby is able to learn what items will be hot or cold, what situations
will be pleasurable or unpleasant. These experiences then become paJ1 of the individual ' s
growing database of information (Piaget, 1970). Piaget held the opinion that if from bil1h the
fundamental intricacies of life are successfully determined by experiment, it is not logical for this
technique to be abandoned as the individual becomes older. Logical thought is not language
alone, thought needs to be actively intertwined with environment (Piaget, 1970).
13
John Dewey was instrumental in challenging the traditional memorization and lecture
approach in the classroom, specifically the science classroom. He brought many of Pia get's
ideas into practical application. Dewey wrote a series of articles objecting to the traditional
classroom approach. At the time he was writing in the early 1900s, the educational system was a
fairly new construct. One hundred years later, his pioneering objections appear to hold merit in
the science classroom today (NRC, 2000).
Dewey's academic career was not restricted to educational theory. He was very active
and influential in the world of political theory and philosophy as well. His main objection to the
educational system in the United States was that it did not represent the individual's place in
society. While he viewed society as an environment that embraced individuality and
independency of thought, Dewey perceived that the educational system was just the opposite in
that it was prescriptive in its methodology, all but eliminating any 0ppoliunity for individual
though processes. In creating a more effective educational experience, Dewey felt that it was
necessary for both the teacher and the student to take ownership of the educational formula. He
saw a world that was embracing democracy, but then ignoring democracy in the classroom
(Dewey, 1903).
Dewey made detailed recommendations on how the classroom, and specifically the
science classroom, could better mirror the new values in the world. "If modern life meant
democracy, democracy means freeing intelligence for independent effectiveness-- the
emancipation of the mind as the original organ to do work" (Dewey, 1903, p. 193). In summary,
he wanted students to use critical thinking to process information and make their own
conclusions and formulas. First, teachers and administration needed to question the method, the
texts, and the curriculum used in the classroom. The material presented needed to be
14
worthwhile, necessary, and interesting. Secondly, teachers need to be well versed in their subject
matter, as material is taught most effectively by someone who knows the subject to be taught
(Dewey, 1903). "Primarily," he writes, "what is required for direct inquiry which constitutes the
essence of science is first hand experience." This was at odds with the traditional method at the
time in which "summaries and the formulas of other people are read" (Dewey, 1903, p. 200).
He suggested that students be taken outside to study and learn about nature, have school
gardens, and learn about the world around them. He prescribed that all science classrooms from
kindergatten up should be equipped with gas, water and some chemicals. In addition, students
should be allowed to experiment freely and discover the results. As students become more
mature, and older, the experiments should move in a more regimented direction (Dewey, 1903).
Dewey felt that this approach to science education, having students take ownership of how and
what they learn, would have the most success.
Dewey did concede that some facts and figures, and thereby memorization, was needed
to construct solutions. He asserted that this should not be confused with incidental use and
passive knowledge of facts. He also stressed the impOltance of safety and structure (Dewey,
1904). He asselted that teachers should have control of the classroom. However, he wrote that
proper instlUction was the most effective way in which to manage behavior. He asserted that if
students were active, rather than passive, learners, they would neither be distracted nor
distracters in the classroom (Dewey, 1904).
With Dewey's objections and prescriptions came the foundation of inquiry as a formula
for teaching. In the last hundred years, advancements in the understanding of the brain's
functions in relation to the learning process have been made. The launch of Sputnik
simultaneously created an increase of experimentation, stressing a hands-on inquiry approach in
15
the classroom. Sputnik encouraged teachers and students to "do science" (NRC, 2000, p.14).
However, Dewey's ideas of inquiry were not fully realized, as many questions and objections
remain despite the growing questions regarding the effectiveness of the traditional educational
system.
The Classroom Today
To appreciate any potential merits to inquiry, it is useful first to acknowledge what
scholars and educators point to as the drawbacks in the CUlTent system. John Dewey would still
regard that the classroom as undemocratic in that the teacher maintains control of the class and
the manner in which the material is imparted. Piaget would likely asseli that as students mature,
experimentation and questioning is increasingly discouraged. Learning through language is
taking the place of learning though experiences (Lord, Shelly, & Zimmerman, 2007). Often, a
classroom will appear as though there is open discussion and thoughtful questions on the part of
the students. However, the teacher usually controls the conversation just as much as the
material. Thought processes and questions are "funneled into predictable patterns" (Blanchard,
Southerland, & Granger, 2009, p. 325). The teaching methods convey to the students a very
static approach to science. It seems completely detached from the real world of science and
investigation (Blanchard et a!., 2009). An assessment of student knowledge would reveal that
the majority of students are simply mastering facts and formulas. Often, there are more
vocabulary words per page in science curriculum than in a foreign language text (Bruning,
Schraw, Norby, & Ronning, 2004). Broad understanding and conceptualization of concepts is
lacking (NRC, 2000). Students' knowledge of the concepts is usually measured solely on daily
worksheets and end-of-the-unit examinations. This learning atmosphere often causes confusion
and frustration, discouraging students from pursuing fields in the area of science in post-
16
secondary environments. There is a correlation between students who cannot conceptualize
scientific ideas and eventually experience failure in post-secondary courses (Deming, &
Cracolice, 2009).
The alternative view centers on students taking responsibility for his or her actions.
Chemistry classes can be difficult to understand and comprehend. The ideas are new to students
and are difficult to visualize. Therefore, students need to have the ambition and dedication to
practice how to execute the formulas. Most students are capable of mastering the key concepts
in chemistry, including the fOlmulas that are a crucial component to science. Initially, high
school students organize problems around surface structures such as equations; only later are
students able to utilize this knowledge base in thinking on an abstract level regarding the
information and organizing it into a meaningful understanding of scientific principles (Bruning et
aI., 2004).
Changes
The National Science Education Standards, NSES (NRC, 2000) concede that there is a
need for change in the system. The National Research Council, NRC (2000) proposes changing
the emphasis of the classroom and curriculum to encourage inquiry, including a requirement to
know scientific information as well as increased emphasis on understanding concepts. They
propose that there should be fewer subjects, but covered in more depth. They discourage
teachers from using activities to verify science, and instead encourage teachers to facilitate
student investigation and analysis of questions. The NRC also encourages teachers to use
multiple class periods to examine phenomenon and in these investigations, require students to
use multiple skills. These would include manipulation and cognition, as well as establishing and
discussing a process (NRC, 2000). Overall, the Standards prescribe that teachers make a move
17
towards inquiry and a new pedagogy, and set aside the traditional teaching methods that Dewey
discussed.
Inquiry in Application
Many educators agree with the Standards and propose inquiry as a remedy for the
traditional problems in the classroom. Many suggested models and techniques for executing
inquiry exist, often in somewhat contradiction, but there is a consensus among scholars about
some key components. The National Science Teachers Association (NST A) advises that inquiry
in the science classroom needs to address a scientific question and it must involve students, to
some degree, in analyzing the data (Bell, Smetanna, & Binns, 2005). Besides these two
fundamental concepts there is little agreement, on what is the "should" model of inquiry.
Since the 1960s, most proposed models for inquiry in the science classroom involve
active engagement. This is due in Palt to the launching of Sputnik in 1957. Also, Joseph
Schwab was an active voice early on, which encouraged educators to restructure their science
curriculum to include active engagement (NRC, 2000). Schwab felt that students should be
introduced first to the laboratory and then later be introduced to the formulas and facts. He felt
that, "evidence should build to explanations and the refinement of explanations" (NRC, 2000, p.
15).
Authors have proposed models of inquiry that are somewhat in contradiction with
Schwab's ideas, but students who have received instruction within these models have
demonstrated an understanding of the material presented. In these models students are
introduced to the topic and given the applicable formulas and components, then subsequently are
brought into the laboratory to actively work through the problems (Deters, 2004). This takes a
backwards approach compared to Schwab, but still has shown to be effective.
18
A model for inquiry focusing on perplexity, model testing and synthesis has been
proposed. The authors of the proposal asseli that the science classroom should connect science
with the real world. Students should be encouraged to make connections between the classroom
and their everyday life. Simultaneously, perplexity should be encouraged without students
becoming confused. Students should be required to do more than sit and learn. They should be
encouraged to analyze results and information and make arguments to suppOli an interpretation.
This requires that teachers present possible alternatives for students to ponder. Students are
encouraged to use the scientific method and determine what plausible explanations there may be
to the given problem (Mc Donald et aI., 2008).
Models have been constructed that stress the importance of group inquiry. With group
inquiry, the class as a learning community works together to produce results. This model
stresses the importance of trust, cooperation and communication. In some proposed examples of
group inquiry, the classroom runs itself in that the students decide when to hold discussion, when
experimentation is necessary, and when to ask questions. Deadlines are established prior to the
class's commencement, but even these are open to interpretation (Gallagher-Bolos, & Smithenry,
2008). Variations of this approach have been implemented. The use of collaborative learning, or
group projects, is at the forefront of developing inquiry curriculum. Collaborative learning
assumes that each individual in the group will have a different database of knowledge, as well as
different problem solving strengths. Collaborative learning presents a challenging task or
problem to the group. This task may be too difficult and overwhelming for an individual but is
approachable for the collective. Together, the group is able to delegate tasks, discuss the process
and progress, take ownership of the successes and failures of the group as a whole, and come to
resolutions for any disagreements regarding the procedures (Goodsell , Mahen, Tinto, Smith, &
19
Mac Gregor, 1992). Learning communities encourage inquiry and bring the classroom closer to
the democracy that Dewey envisioned. It is expected in any form of group inquiry that students
will engage in the scientific process, take ownership and therefore learn more than in a
traditional classroom (Bruning, et al., 2004).
Teachers have options for which methods to employ. Proponents for inquiry commonly
suggest that science teachers change the lab procedures and materials in order to provide students
with more flexibility and increased challenge. With guidance, the students can determine what
the materials should be, or choose from a given variety of labs. Students can then present their
findings to the class or write a more detailed analysis. Students can write vocabulary in their own
words, rather than copying it out of the text. Inquiry methods can be more complex, such as
going into the field to investigate, collect data, and compare findings to other publications (NRC,
2000). These teaching methods all fall under the umbrella of inquiry.
Levels of Inquiry
Reading the proposed methods to inquiry quickly reveals that there is no definitive
expectation on what inquiry in the classroom would look like. FUlihermore, there seems to be
many levels of inquiry, including how much the students are supposed to navigate themselves,
and what information is presented to students by the teacher. Schwab first introduced this idea
oflevels of inquiry, but others subsequently elaborated on it.
Schwab suggested three possibilities for science teachers to integrate inquiry in the
classroom (NRC, 2000). Each suggests a different combination of student and teacher
leadership. The first approach suggests that textbooks propose a question and describe possible
ways that a solution can be achieved. The second approach still uses textbooks to propose the
question but leaves the students to determine the answers. In the final approach, students
20
propose a question and a solution. The final possibility is obviously the most open and depends
most heavily on the ingenuity of the students.
Later, scholars formulated four levels of inquiry, which have been widely accepted for
the most pa1i. With confirmation, the first level of inquiry, students confirm a principle through
an activity oflaboratory experiment. The results of the activity are predictable to both the
student and the teacher. The goal of the activity is for the student to confirm results. The second
level is structured inquiry, in which the students are presented with both a question and a
procedure. What separates structured inquiry from confirmation is that the students are unaware
of the final results, whereas the teacher is. The third level, guided inquiry, presents students with
a question to investigate, but the students design the procedure used to determine the answer.
The procedure needs to adhere to strict guidelines, have a proper hypothesis, and demonstrate a
realistic process. The teacher will guide students towards procedures that will produce a correct
conclusion. The fomih level of inquiry is similar to Schwab's third level of inquiry. In the
fomih level, students determine their own topic and then determine their procedure to solve the
question. Authors submit that inquiry level four is probably not conducive to classroom
instruction because by definition students would be investigating many different topics. It is
most useful in a science fair setting where teachers want to encourage students to investigate
original topics (Gengarelly & Abrams, 2010).
The four levels of inquiry link with a proposed 'five kinds of learning in the inquiry
process.' The five kinds of learning are not as widely accepted as the four levels, but still hold
merit. The first type of learning is curriculum content in which the student gains knowledge and
synthesizes it. The second, information literacy, expects students to locate and evaluate
information. Literacy competence takes the next step and requires that students can explain the
21
information. Finally, the necessary component of developing social skills requires that students
be able to cooperate and work together towards solutions (Kuhlthau & Maniotes, 2010).
The flexibility for inquiry may encourage teachers to include the concept in the
classroom. However, the different levels may have the unintended consequence of causing
confusion and discrepancies amongst researchers. Confirmation and guided inquiry are both
refened to as inquiry, but they involve very different teaching strategies. To some researchers,
inquiry is reworking labs so that students simply decide what materials are needed , while other
researchers would dictate that inquiry involve a situation that would incorporate an active
participation such as taking a class field trip into the woods where students would have the
0ppOliunity to investigate differences in tree growth and determine the possible causes. Some
researchers assume that inquiry relinquishes teacher control, but others would classify students
experimenting in a laboratory as inquiry. The NSTA asserts that inquiry is a "learning process
which students answer questions though data analysis" (Bell, et aI., 2005, p.30). In further
explanation, "the most authentic inquiry activities are those which students answer their own
questions through analyzing data they collect independently. However, an activity can still be
inquiry based if questions and data are provided" (Bell, et aI. , 2005, p.30). The levels of inquiry
explain reality, but they may also create confusion.
The ultimate goal of inquiry is the same: to promote students' critical thinking skills,
therefore acquiring a deeper conceptual understanding. However, several byproducts exist that
scholars suggest result from inquiry. A positive attitude about science and the classroom is
encouraged. Students who participate in inquiry labs, generally, have a better emotional
response towards science (Lord et aI., 2007). In addition, students are compelled to develop their
own investigation rather than passively fed the concepts and correct answers, only to regurgitate
22
the information at a later time, and so the theory is that students will internalize the scientific
process. Depending on which form of inquiry is implemented; students learn that outcomes are
sometimes unpredictable, and concurrently improve their performance in non-lab settings due to
a greater comf0l1 level in taking intellectually-based risks in the laboratory setting (Deters,
2005). Students are required to communicate ideas with laboratory partners and with the class as
a whole this often has the effect of increased communication skills. Furthermore, students are
encouraged to use argumentation to make a case for their explanation, which plays a part in
developing critical life skills (Meyer & Avery, 2010). Expanding argumentation skills will
further help students understand the scientific process and conceptualize the activity and
formulas involved. If students understand the specific experiment, they will more likely be able
to internalize that idea and apply it to other phenomenon. This is crucial in order for students
have the ability to predict events, a key goal for teachers and a main prescription of the science
standards (Deters, 2005). Educators stress the importance of teachers maintaining structure and
expectations in the classroom. Inquiry does not give a license for chaos and complete
independence. Teachers must encourage thoughtful, useful exercises by setting standards.
Inquiry in Research
Because the flexibility of success and the four levels that constitute inquiry, it is
sometimes difficult to determine the success of inquiry. In an individual study a positive or
negative correlation can be shown. Any experienced teacher or student understands that teaching
styles can vary depending on the person or even on the school district. Every class takes on a
unique and individual shape, as there are many variables that determine which strategies work.
For example, different subject material can influence the effectiveness of inquiry. The level of
inquiry the researcher is assessing and the teaching methods used can affect the results, as well
23
as the socioeconomic status of a district (Roelu'ig & Garrow, 2007). To more fully understand
the merit of inquiry, it is most useful to research a number of studies to develop a sense of what
method is most useful in creating an environment that is most conducive to student success.
Tingle and Good found no statistically significant difference in test scores between
students who learned stoichiometry in an inquiry-based classroom versus students who leamed
stoichiometry in a more traditional classroom (Tingle & Good, 1990). Roehrig and Garrow
studied the effects of inquiry on students leaming gas laws, phases of matter, and density. The
Roelu'ig study found statistically high SUppOlt for a relationship between student achievement
and inquiry. The study also showed that the participation in an inquiry curriculum had more of
an effect on student success than the economic status of the district (Roelu'ig & Garrow, 2007).
A study conducted by Travis and Lord assessed both the success of students and the attitudes of
students towards science. The researchers compared two sections of biology taught by the same
instructor. Travis and Lord found that the class who were taught with the inquiry-based method
scored significantly higher on assessments, attended class at a statistically higher rate, and
enjoyed the class a statistically higher amount (Travis & Lord, 2004). There are a number of
studies that show that students do as well, if not significantly better, in classrooms that stress an
inquiry curriculum. Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, (2006) disagree with these findings. The
authors asselt that there is "overwhelming and unambiguous evidence" (p. 7 6) that inquiry does
not work to teach novice 1eamers. The authors asselt that inquiry ignores how memory works.
The students first need to establish a database of knowledge to work from and only then can
understand how it applies to the world (Kirschner et aI., 2006).
Inquiry in the Standards
24
The National Science Education Standards, NSES (NRC, 1996), Benchmarks for Science
Literacy (AAAS Project 2061 , 1993), Atlas of Science Literacy (AAAS Project 2061,2001) and
the Wisconsin's Model Academic Standards for Science (Fortier, Grady, Lee & Wisconsin State
Dept. of Public Instruction, 2006) all discuss the imp0l1ance of implementation of inquiry-based
science education in our schools. Inquiry is necessary to meet the educational standards and is
stressed throughout. According to NRC (1996), "Professional Development Standard A:
Professional development for teachers of science requires learning essential content through the
perspectives and methods of inquiry" (p.59). Science learning experiences must actively seek to
involve teachers in hands-on investigations, address new, relevant issues, and incorporate
ongoing reflection and encourage collaboration. The standards encourage teachers to experience
inquiry first hand and then apply it to their classroom. Inquiry in the classroom is also included
in NRC (1996), "Teaching Standard D: Teachers of science design and manage learning
envirorunents that provide students with the time, space, and resources needed for learning
science" (p. 43). Teachers need to structure their classroom so that students are able to engage in
extended observations, supp0l1 science inquiry, use resources outside the school, and engage
students in designing their learning envirorunent (NRC, 1996).
The expectations regarding the execution of inquiry-based activities are explicitly stated
in the standards. How the teacher applies these expectations in the classroom are up for debate
and interpretation. However, that withstanding, many teachers still avoid inquiry altogether in
favor of traditional approaches (NRC, 2000).
Inquiry Constraints
The evidence, however, seems to show that there is, at the minimum , potential benefit for
inquiry in the classroom. Yet, approximately ten percent of science teachers employ inquiry in
25
the classroom (Buning et aI., 2004; Roehrig & Luft, 2004). There are several proposed reasons
for this that fall into two classifications. The first reason is purely procedural. Using inquiry in
the classroom means that teachers will not have complete control over exactly what students do.
In a traditional classroom, the teacher adheres to lesson plans and instructions. Inquiry requires
that students be allowed to take a different path, and perhaps make mistakes. Budgeting time can
also be more difficult when incorporating inquiry labs. Students will take more time designing
procedures or synthesizing the results than in a conventional lab. There is always more material
than can be covered in a semester or a qual1er. Teachers are under pressure to include the
material necessary to meet standards and equip students for a post-secondary education.
Teachers may find it difficult to justify spending the extra time to do labs and time consuming to
restructure curriculum to account for these changes. The lack of control combined with the
increased time needed can be frustrating for the teacher (Deters, 2005).
Teachers must also consider safety issues and monitor laboratory experiments closely.
The theory of inquiry does not suggest unstructured activities, but rather the elimination of
rigidity in the learning experience. With structure and guidance, teachers can encourage students
to synthesize their own generated data. Students may arrive at incorrect conclusions, which is to
be expected. The teacher must be prepared to accept these setbacks and guide the students
toward a reasonable conclusion, or the entire experience will result in discouragement for both
teachers and students (Meyer & Avery, 2010). Because teachers have a certain material that they
are required to cover to prepare students, there is the concern that incorporation of inquiry into
education will cause a loss of instruction time in which to introduce all of the necessary
concepts. The students may enjoy science more, but some teachers fear that this method may not
be any more effective; yet take more time to use, therefore rendering it almost useless. Teachers
26
must be trained in the incorporation of inquiry-based learning so as not to negatively affect the
learning process. Some teachers avoid inquiry because of their own lack of experience. Many
teachers were not exposed to inquiry at any point in school and are not familiar with how to
efficiently implement it in their own classroom. There are a number of teachers who feel that
incorporation of inquiry would be beneficial but have no idea how to incorporate it into their
classroom (Bruning et aI., 2004). Also, teachers have limited resources, and the extra supplies
and resources may not be easily attainable (Fay & Bretz, 2008).
Dewey stated inquiry requires that teachers be well versed and have a thorough
understanding of their own subject material. Only then will teachers feel comfOliable enough
with their subject material to encourage questions and promote a free discourse among students.
But, increasingly, teachers are teaching out of subject or out of discipline (Gengarelly & Abrams,
2010). In a study conducted by Roehrig & Luft (2004) it was repOlied that 56% of physical
science teachers were teaching high school students without having a minor in science. Teacher
understanding is often limited to what is in the textbook; therefore, deviating from the textbook
is next to impossible. The standards require that teachers are able to "understand the
fundamental facts and concepts in major science disciplines ... (and) be able to make conceptual
connections within and across discipline, as well as mathematics, technology and other school
subjects and use scientific understanding and ability when dealing with personal and societal
issues" (NRC, 1996, p.59).
The standards do not make any stipulations on what specific knowledge a teacher must
possess. There are no criteria about majors, minors, or field experiences. The NSES (NRC,
1996) address this concern by stating, "how much more science a teacher needs to know for a
given level of schooling is an issue of breadth verses depth to be debated and decided locally" (p.
27
59). The standards concede that there is a great level of interpretation. There are potentially
great implications for students if teachers are not well versed in their subject material. A study
by Scantlebury (2008), found a direct correlation between increased professional development
opportunities focused on chemistry content for teachers and increased chemistry scores among
students.
Stoichiometry in the Real World
Dewey advised teachers and administrators to review curriculum and remove any
unnecessary aspects. The study assesses the potential usefulness of inquiry to teach
stoichiometry. It is therefore peliinent to assess the value of stoichiometry in the classroom. The
Wisconsin's Model Academic Standards for Science addresses stoichiometry in the Physical
Science standard, "D.l2.4 Explain how substances, both simple and complex, interact with one
another to produce new substances" (Fortier et aI., 2006, p.ll). Chemical changes produce new
substances with new properties. Knowing what new substances and properties that will be
produced allows chemists to produce remarkable results; new chemicals can cure diseases,
withstand the most difficult conditions, and explode or react with other chemicals (Eisenkraft,
2007, p. 282). Stoichiometry is crucial in calculating the amounts of materials that are needed in
producing new chemicals in that it helps determine the desired amount of materials needed for
production without unnecessary amount of waste (Eisenkraft, 2007).
In a study conducted by Deters (2003), chemistry instructors at post-secondary
institutions were asked to rank the twenty-two topics that are covered in high school chemistry
programs in order of importance. The college professors' choices of the top five topics needed
in high school chemistry were: basic skills, moles, dimensional analysis, stoichiometry, and
naming and writing formulas. Moles ranked second at 58% and stoichiometry ranked fourth at
28
55%. Three years later, Deters (2006) conducted a study asking high school teachers what topics
were covered in a high school chemistry class. In this study, the top eight topics were: balancing
reactions, naming and writing formulas, studying moles, gaining knowledge of basic skills (units,
significant figures, graphing), studying atomic structure, periodic table and periodicity,
classifying matter, and developing an understanding of stoichiometry. Moles ranked third at
98.4% and stoichiometry ranked eighth at 95.3%. Knowledge of stoichiometry is necessary
begin to understand complex chemistry equations, especially if a student plans to pursue a career
in science. Students cannot gain full knowledge of chemistry without a comprehensive
understanding of stoichiometry, as it is one of the basic building blocks of chemistry; without
this knowledge, the student will be unable to show proportions, balance equations, or completely
demonstrate the meaning of an experiment.
Studies have reported that stoichiometry is one of the most difficult topics for students to
understand (Cook, E., & Cook, R. L., 2005; Arasasingham, R., Taagepera, F., Potter, F., &
Lonjers, S., 2004; Tingle & Good, 1990). Stoichiometry requires students to use theoretical
models and interpret data that cannot be directly experienced (Arasasingham et aI., 2004). It has
been suggested that high school age students do not possess the necessary visualization skills.
Alternatively, it has been suggested that lack or useful instruction is to blame (Aasasingham et
aI., 2004). There is not yet a definitive answer to this question. The traditional approach to
teaching stoichiometry is to present students with a formula and instructions for reaching the
appropriate answer. These answers are then definitively right or wrong without any middle
ground. Laboratory experiments can be used to demonstrate the concept, but if experimentation
is included, it is usually applied after the formulas are introduced and only to confirm the
findings (Aasasingham et aI., 2004). It is not yet detelmined is if inquiry can be effectively used
29
specificaUy to teach this difficult yet crucial idea, or if using traditional methods of teaching is
more effective. Using inquiry to teach stoichiometry reveals the paradox on which many
scholars focus. Students must inquire using knowledge that they already possess, and the inquiry
process must add to their investigating process (NRC, 2000). It can be challenging for an
instructor to facilitate the use of inquiry in the instruction of stoichiometry.
In Review
There are those who are skeptical of the effectiveness in using inquiry as a tool in the
instruction process in education, specifically in the area of science. There is a school of thought
that believes traditional instruction, particularly with formulas, is necessary to develop the
database of knowledge. Once students become more adept, then inquiry and self-guided
research can be implemented. Skeptics of inquiry in the science classroom draw a distinction
between science and the real world, rather than aiming to combine science and the real world .
They contend that scientists do science and science students learn how to do science. Proponents
for inquiry in the science classroom asseli that the traditional method utilized for over one
hundred years has been inefficient and alienated students who may have otherwise pursued
science related professions, causing them to opt for a different career path. Proponents argue
that students do not understand or conceptualize the material simply by instruction and
repetition.
The material and the options are available for teachers to implement inquiry in the
classroom. There is a continuum of established and potential possibilities. The standards
explicitly state inquiry is necessary and encourage districts to provide training in the field of
inquiry. However there are some drawbacks. Inquiry takes time, dedication, and commitment,
the willingness on the pali of the teacher to take a risk and revamp the cUlTiculum. Perhaps the
30
biggest hindrance is the same paradox that Dewey struggled with. Students need an established
bank of knowledge to draw from in order to evaluate and predict scientific events in a
constructive way. Celtain formulas and equations are a necessary, albeit sometimes boring and
difficult, pmt of doing science. Understanding the sophisticated 'whys?' differentiates playing in
the laboratory from real science. This is not to say that inquiry cannot be used to teach these
formulas, but teachers need more information and direct instruction in order to confidently rely
on that method.
31
Chapter III: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine how the use of an inquiry-based activity
impacts students' understanding of the' mole' concept and influences their attitudes toward
learning the 'mole' concept in a high school chemistry class.
Research Design
The design of the study was a quasi-experimental posttest-only. A posttest was
administered to both the treatment group and the control group to measure the concept of the
mole. An attitude survey administered to the treatment group at the end of the study determined
the students' general feelings toward the learning process. The independent variable was the use
of an inquiry-based activity to introduce the mole concept. The dependent variable was the
students' understanding of the mole concept and their attitude toward learning the mole concept
using the inquiry-based activity. The control variable in this study was the introduction to the
mole concept using traditional lecture-discussion teaching style.
Population and Sample
The researcher, who is also the instructor, conducted the study within the chemistry
classroom, located in the high school of a small town in western Wisconsin with a population of
approximately 3,000 people. The high school has nearly 400 students in grades nine through
twelve. This town' s population is 98% white/Caucasian. The high school serves an
economically diverse group of students from those who live in town to those who live in
sUlTounding rural areas. Although the amount of ethnic diversity is small, a greater
socioeconomic diversity is indicated by the percentage of students who are eligible for free or
reduced lunch, which is approximately 15%.
32
The students involved in this study are all eleventh graders enrolled in a full year of
regular chemistry. The 24 students assigned to the researchers fourth hour chemistry class will
be the control group and the 26 students assigned to the researchers sixth hour chemistry class
will be the treatment group.
Instrumentation
The control group was introduced to the mole concept using a traditional style of lecturediscussion. Students took notes, worked sample calculations, and completed assigned problems
from their textbook. The posttest was given to measure students' understanding of the mole
concept. The treatment group was introduced to the mole concept through an inquiry-based
activity, What's in a Mole? from the textbook Living By Chemisfry (Stacy, 2010, p. 72) in which
students created tangible molar samples with the intended outcome of increased comprehension
of the mole concept. Once the exploratory activity was finished, students worked sample
calculations, calculated molar mass of compounds, and completed assigned problems from their
textbook . The posttest was administered to measure students ' ability to demonstrate an
understanding of the mole concept.
Data Collection
Control group (4th hour): On the first day of the study, the mole concept was introduced
using a traditional style of teaching. While information was presented in a lecture-style format,
students took notes and pmiicipated in any discussion that may arise. They were given an
assignment from their textbook in which they answered questions and solved 'mole'
calculations. On the second day, students continued working on calculations. On the third day,
students took the 'Mole' test, written by the instructor, which was designed to measure student
knowledge of the 'mole'.
33
Treatment group (6th hour): On the first day of the study, the mole concept was
introduced using an inquiry-based activity. Students followed the directions of the activity, and
the instructor observed and answered any questions. The instructor facilitated discussions
involving open-ended questions and encouraged the students to actively engage in researching
further to answer these questions. The students were assigned problems from the activity, which
included calculations using the 'mole'. On the second day, students were provided with the
0ppOliunity to ask questions regarding the concepts and then continue working on calculations.
On the third day, students took the same 'Mole' test administered to the control group. Once
they had completed the test, the treatment group was asked to complete an attitude survey. The
survey was designed by the instructor to assess students' attitudes toward using the inquiry-based
activity.
Data Analysis
The instructor used a chemistry posttest consisting of ten multiple-choice items and five
calculation questions representing the mole concept to measure students' understanding of the
mole. A copy of this test can be found in Appendix A. The scores collected were statistically
analyzed to measure if there was a significant difference in the mean score of the control group
and the treatment group. The treatment group was given an attitude survey to determine how the
inquiry-based activity influenced their feelings about learning the mole concept. A copy of the
survey can be found in Appendix B. The survey also ascertained their opinions about the
chemistry class compared to the traditional approach they had been using. There were five
questions on the attitude survey. This survey was measured on a Likert scale of (1) strongly
disagrees to (5) strongly agree. The data collected was used to analyze any change in the
treatment group's attitudes using inquiry-based activities and the chemistry class in general.
34
Chapter IV: Results
The purpose of this study was to determine differences in student knowledge and
understanding of the ' mole' concept with differing teaching styles. Students' test scores and an
attitude survey were collected . The results were derived from the comparison of the separate
methods used to instruct the two groups of students.
The students involved in the study were all eleventh graders enrolled in a full year of
regular chemistry. The control group consisted of the 24 students assigned to the fomth hour
chemistry class. This group was introduced to the mole concept using a traditional style of
lecture and discussion. The 26 students assigned to the sixth hour chemistJy class made up the
treatment group. The treatment group was introduced to the mole concept tlu'ough an inquirybased activity.
Student Achievement
On the third day of the study the control group (4 th hour) and the treatment group (6 th
hour) were administered the Mole test. A copy of the test can be found in Appendix A. The
mean scores of each group were calculated based on 100% accuracy. The control group had a
mean score of 88% correct, and the treatment group had a mean score of 89% correct. The
results of each group are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Student Achievement- Mean Score of the Mole Chemistry Test
Mole Exam Scores
88%
89%
CI
100
percent
Q _···· ········ ···· · · · · · ·I
c",,,,, 50
1
o '!""
,
,..../
Student Achievement
cContr ol: 4th Hour
IZITreatment: 6th Hour
35
The test items were written to include four concepts of working with the 'mole'. The
first concept was the application of terminology and the use of definitions (questions 1, 3, 5, 6, &
14). The second was calculating the molar mass from a written compound (questions 2, 7, 9, &
11). The third concept involved calculating the number of moles from a gram sample (questions
4, 10, & 12). The final pOition of the test was written to challenge the students' knowledge of
the mole concept by using Avogadro's constant calculating molar mass and finding a mass using
a mole quantity (questions 8,13, & 15).
The test scores from the control group indicated the most difficulty with question 15.
Question 15 asks the students to explain which ha;s more mass, one mole of Oxygen (0 2) or one
mole of Aluminum (AI). The students who answered incorrectly tried to explain they had the
same mass because the samples represented one mole of each sample. The Oxygen sample has
the larger mass compared to Aluminum. The treatment group had answered the question
correctly. During the inquiry activity the students measured the mass of one mole of common
materials.
The test scores from the treatment group indicated difficulty with questions 8 and 10.
Question 8 applies the use of Avogadro's number to calculate the mass of sugar (C'2H 22 0,,) that
is recorded in molecules. Most fthe incorrect answers from the students were attributed to the
selection of the sugar's molecular weight (342 g) because the students did not apply Avogadro's
number to change the sample size. This application may have been difficult because the use of
Avogadro's number was only mentioned in the inquiry activity but not demonstrated. Question
10 asks students to calculate the number of moles from a sample size of a common substance,
baking soda (NaHC0 3). The treatment group was able to calculate the mass of one mole of
baking soda but was unable to apply that information in the calculation.
36
Student Attitude
The students in the treatment group were asked to complete an attitude survey. The
student attitude survey was examined by calculating the mean response of each Likert scale
statement. The results of the survey are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Attitude Survey Results
Q1
Q2
Q3a
Q3b
Q3c
Q3d
Q4
Q5
Q6a
Q6b
Q6c
Total
Mean
92
74
110
109
101
91
78
90
109
98
117
3.54
2.85
4.23
4.19
3.88
3.50
3.00
3.46
4.19
3.77
4.50
Standard
Deviation
1.10
1.01
0.76
0.94
0.95
1.10
1.20
0.99
0.85
1.21
0.86
The closer a mean score was to 5 indicated the students strongly agreed with the question
and a score closer to 1 indicated the students strongly disagreed. The collected scores reporting
students' opinions about inquiry-based activities were from questions 1, 3b, and 3d . The
questions asked the treatment group if they liked using the inquiry activity to investigate a new
concept. This group of questions had a mean score of 3.74 and a range score of 3.5 - 4.91.
Question number 4 asked the students if they found the inquiry activity frustrating because there
was not enough direction for them to complete the activity. The mean score was 1.2. The
treatment group strongly disagreed and did not find the activity frustrating. The collected scores
reporting on the traditional style of instruction were covered in questions 2, 3a, 3c, and 5. The
questions asked students their opinions of leaming a new concept by traditional lecture and
37
discussion, working several sample problems, and memorizing steps and formulas. This group
of questions had a mean score of3.61 and a range score of2.85 - 4.23. The treatment group
slightly agreed that they liked learning chemistry using a traditional style approach. The final
category of questions asked the treatment group how confident they felt about their content
knowledge of the mole concept after they completed the activity and test. Questions 6a, 6b, and
6c had a mean score of 4.15 and a range score of 3.77 - 4.50. The treatment group repolied they
felt confident with the mass-mole concept.
38
Chapter V: Discussion
Summary
The purpose of this study is to examine the use of an inquiry-based activity and its effect
on students' attitudes and the conceptual understanding of stoichiometric mass-mole problem
solving in a high school chemistry class.
Research Questions
The research questions were:
1. How does the inquiry-based activity of working mass-mole calculations relate to the
attitudes of chemistry students at Prescott High School?
2. Do chemistry students at Prescott High School who learn mass-mole calculations with the
support of an inquiry-based activity display an increased conceptual understanding
compared to those students who follow a traditional style of lecture?
The design of the study was a quasi-experimental posttest-only. A posttest measured the
students' ability to demonstrate an understanding of the mole concept, and an attitude survey
administered to the treatment group measured their feelings about the inquiry-based activity. The
independent variable was the use of an inquiry-based activity. The dependent variable was the
students' understanding of the mole concept and their attitudes toward learning the mole concept
using the inquiry-based activity. The control variable in this study was the introduction to the
mole concept using traditional lecture-discussion teaching style.
The students involved in the study were all eleventh graders enrolled in a full year of
regular chemistry. The 24 students assigned to the fOUlih hour chemistry class was the control
group, and the 26 students assigned to the sixth hour chemistry class was the treatment group.
39
The control group was introduced to the mole concept using a traditional style of lecturediscussion, and a posttest was given to measure students' understanding of the mole concept.
The treatment group was introduced to the mole concept through an inquiry-based activity,
rVhal's in a Mole? (Stacy, 2010), and a posttest was given to measure students' comprehension
of the mole concept.
Conclusion
The control groups mean score was 88% (SD= 3.113) and the treatment groups mean
score was 89% (SD=2.007). Based on a I-Iesl for equality of means, 1= -0.043 andp = 0.965,
there is no statistically significant differences between these two groups on their performance on
the 'Mole' test (a = 0.05). As there has been research indicating that inquiry-based activities
enhance learning and provide more meaningful learning for students, there are various possible
reasons for the lack of significant differences between the two groups. While one explanation
could be that these palticular students are able to learn at an approximate equal level with either
style of teaching, it is more likely that, because this was the first time inquiry-based instruction
has been used, the methodology may need to be improved before noticeable differences can be
discerned. More opportunities for discussion, or possibly more guidance in discovering areas
which could lead to fUlther research, may be needed. In addition, if students have become
accustomed to a lecture-style method teaching, they may need additional time to adjust their
thought processes to a new style of learning.
According to collected research, inquiry-based activities may enhance student learning.
While it need not replace a lecture style, the activities certainly provide additional opportunities
for fUlther learning. These activities allow the student to make relevant connections on a more
concrete level, one that provides the ability to learn how the material relates to life outside of a
40
classroom. While this method would appear loosely structured, it actually requires more
structure in some respects as far as guiding students through open research and questioning
sessions. The use of inquiry-based activities provides additional opportunities for student
success since traditional teaching methods are not conducive to all learning styles. These
activities allow the instructor to observe and assess students' ability to demonstrate their
knowledge of the material.
This type of teaching and learning, however, takes practice for both the students and the
instructor. While the inquiry-based activities may eventually prove to be beneficial, it will take
practice on the pal1 of the students to develop the skills to shift their learning style, and the
teacher will need to learn how to guide the lessons, as that is one of the major components of
inquiry-based learning. The instructor will need to restructure a traditional teaching style that
has been in place for years, and the two styles will need to be incorporated with each other in the
classroom, with a balanced to be of the greatest benefit to the students. The teacher will need to
learn how to provide the students an 0ppol1unity to bring their ideas regarding the material to the
forefront and still provide organization to the entire process. Overall, this method appears to be
one that will benefit both the teacher and the students, but everyone will need continued practice
for those benefits to be obvious. When this happens, then both deeper learning and a more
positive attitude will be obvious in the classroom.
Recommendations
The inquiry-based based activity was found to improve students' attitudes working massmole calculation in chemistry. Students reported they felt more confident with the material after
using an inquiry activity to introduce the topic. There was not a significant difference of student
achievement between the two groups. Given that previous research has indicated that the
41
benefits of inquiry-based instruction are significant in the acquisition of skills presented in the
classroom, it would follow that the measurement of students ' knowledge of the concepts should
demonstrate a greater difference in results. Therefore, further studies using a larger group of
students over a longer period of time is recommended.
42
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061 . (1993). Benchmarks for
science literacy. New York: Oxford.
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Proj ect 2061 . (2001). Atlas for science
literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Appalachia Educational Lab ., C. (2005) . Module 4--effective teaching. School improvement
specialist training materials: Performance standards, improving schools, and literature
review. Appalachia Educational Laboratory at Edvantia, Retrieved from ERIC database.
Applefield,1. M., Huber, R., & Moallem, M. (2001). Constructivism in theory and
practice: Toward a better understanding. High School Journal, 84(2),35-53 .
Arasasingham, R. , Taagepera, F., Potter, F. , & Lonjers, S. (2004). Using knowledge space theory
to assess student understanding of stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 81 (10),
1517-1523.
Bell, R. L., Smetanna, L., & Binns,!. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. Science
Teacher, 72(7),30-33.
Blanchard, M., Southerland, S., & Granger, E. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense
of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science
Education, 93(2), 322-360. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. 1., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and
instruction (4th Ed.) . Upper Saddle River, NJ :Pearson Prentice Hall
Cook, E. , & Cook, R. L. (2005). Cross-proportions: A conceptual method for developing
quantitative problem-solving skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(8), 1187-1189.
43
Cracolice, M . S., Deming, J. C., & Ehle11, B. (2008). Concept learning versus problem solving:
A cognitive difference. Journal o/Chemical Education, 85(6), 873-878.
Deming, J.
c., &
Cracolice, M. S. (2009, October). Inquiry instruction in high school chemistry
and its effects on students' proportional reasoning ability. National Science Teacher
Association- Conference on Science Education, Minneapolis, MN.
Deters, K. (2003). What should we teach in high school chemistry? Journal o/Chemical
Education, 80(10),1153-1155.
Deters, K. (2004). Inquiry in the chemistry classroom. Science Teacher, 71(10),42-45.
Deters, K. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs. Journal o/Chemical
Education, 82(8), 1178-1180.
Deters, K. (2006). What are we teaching in high school chemistry? Journal o/Chemical
Education, 83(10), 1492-1498.
Deters, K. (2009). Chemistry: Discovering chemistlY you need to knovl'. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. ElementmySchool Teacher, 4(4),193-204.
Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Dewey, J. (1904). Significance of the school education. Elementary School Teacher, 4(7), 441-
453. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Eisenkraft, A. (2007). Active chemistfY. Armonk, NY: It's About Time, Herff Jones Education
Division.
Fay, M., & Bretz, S. (2008). Structuring the level of inquiry in your classroom. Science Teacher,
75(5),38-42.
44
Fortier, J., Grady, S., Lee, S., & Wisconsin State Dept. of Public Instruction, M. (2006).
Wisconsin's Model Academic Standards/or Science. Bulletin No. 8161.
Gallagher-Bolos, J., & Smitheruy, D. (2008). Whole-class inquiry. Science Teacher, 75(6),3944 . Retrieved from Education Research Complete database
Gengarelly L, & Abrams E. (2010). Closing the gap: Inquiry in research and the secondary
science classroom. Journal o/Science Education & Technology, 18(1), 74-84. Retrieved
from ERIC database.
Goodsell, A., Mahen, M., Tinto, Y., Smith, B. L., & Mac Gregor, J. (1992). Collaborative
Learning: A Sourcebook/or Higher Education. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Haury, D. L., & Rillero, P. R. (1994). Perspectives
0/ hands-on science teaching.
Columbus,
OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential,
and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Retrieved from
ERIC database.
Kuhlthau, C., & Maniotes, L. (2010). Building guided inquiry teams for 21 st-Century learners.
School Librmy Monthly, 26(5), 18-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier
database.
Lord, T., Shelly, C., & Zimmerman, R. (2007). Putting inquiry teaching to the test: Enhancing
leaming in college botany. Journal o/College Science Teaching, 36(7), 62-65. Retrieved
from Education Research Complete database.
45
McDonald, S., Criswell, B., & Dreon Jr., O. (2008). Chapter 4: Inquiry in the chemistry
classroom: Perplexity, model testing, and synthesis. (pp. 41-51). National Science
Teachers Association. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Meyer, D ., & Avery, L. (2010). Why inquiry is inherently difficult... and some ways to make it
easier. Science Educator, 19( 1), 26-32. Retrieved from Education Research Complete
database.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC :
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Roehrig, G., & Luft, J . (2004). Inquiry teaching in high school chemistry classrooms: The role of
knowledge and beliefs. Journal of Chemical Education, 81 (10), 1510-1516.
Roelu'ig, G., & Garrow, S. (2007). The impact of teacher classroom practices on student
achievement during the implementation of a reform-based chemistry curriculum.
International Journal ofScience Education, 29(14), 1789-1811.
http://ezproxy.lib.uwstout.edu:2103,doi: 10.1 080/0950069060 1091865
Stacy, A. (2010). Living by chemistlY. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
Scantlebury, K. (2008). Impact of chemistry teachers' knowledge and practices on student
achievement. AlP Conference Proceedings, 1064(1), 46-49. doi: 10.1 06311.3021270 .
46
Suaalii, F., & Bhattacharya, M. (2007). Conceptual model of learning to improve understanding
of high school chemistry. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(1),101-110.
Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Travis, H. J. , & Lord, T. R. (2004) . Traditional and constructivist teaching techniques:
Comparing two groups of undergraduate non-science majors in a biology lab. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 34(3), 12-18.
Tingle, 1., & Good, R. (1990, October 1). Effects of cooperative grouping on stoichiometric
problem solving in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
27(7), 671-83 . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ417246) Retrieved July 13 ,
2009, from ERIC database.
Yager, R. (Ed.). (2009). Inquiry: The key to exemplary science. Arlington, VA: National Science
Teachers Association.
Wolf, C. (2007). Exploring chemistry in our ·world. Dallas, TX: 1.M. LeBel Publishers Inc.
47
Appendix A: The Mole Chemistry Test
The Mole
Name--------------------Write the letter of the term or phrase that completes the statement or answers the question.
_ 1. The sum of the atomic masses of all atoms in the formula unit of an ionic compound is the
a)atomic density
b)molecular mass
c)ionic mass d)formula mass
_ 2. The molar mass of Magnesium Chloride, MgCb , is
a)59.8 g
b)95.2 g
c)125.8 g
d)76.4 g
_ 3. Which of the following units is used to represent the chemical quantity of a substance as a
number of particles?
a)kilogram
b) ampere
c)gross
d)mole
_ 4. The number of moles represented by 23.0 grams of nitrogen dioxide, N0 2 , is
a)0.500
b)1.00
c)2.00
d)3.00
_ 5. Which of the following statements explains why chemists do not count atoms and
molecules directly?
a)Matter is neither created or nor destroyed in a chemical reaction.
b)All of the relationships in a chemical reaction can be expressed as mass ratios.
c)Atoms and molecules are extremely small.
d)Reactions occur one atom at a time.
_ 6. The number of atoms of each element in a molecule is shown in a(n)
a)Empirical formula b)molecular formula c )mole
d)molecular mass
7. What is the molar mass of sodium sulfate, Na2S04 ?
c)1 09.98 g
d)70.99 g
a)142.06 g
b)86.99 g
23
_ 8. What is the mass of 1.50 x 10 molecules of cane sugar (C 12 H 220 II)?
a)513 g
b)85.6 g
c)342 g
d)1370 g
_ 9. What is the molar mass of baking soda, NaHC0 3 ,
a)52.02 g
b)108.04 g
c)156.06 g
d)84.02 g
_10. The number of moles represented by 252.06 g of baking soda, NaHC0 3 , is
a)5.00
b)3.00
c)2.00
d) 1.00
Calculations
11 . Calculate the molar mass of each of the following,
a) CaBr2
b) Ca3(P04)2
12. Calculate the number of moles of each of substance from each of the following masses given
a) 15.0 g of Carbon dioxide, C02
b) 50.0 g of Aluminum sulfate, AI2(S04)3
13. Calculate the molar mass of each of the following moles of substances
a) 1.85 moles MgCb
b) 2.50 moles Cu(OH) 2
Short answer
14. What do you need to know in order to figure out the mass of a mole of any compound?
15. Explain which has more mass, 1 mole of Oxygen molecules, 02 , or 1 mole of aluminum
atoms, Al ?
48
Appendix B: Attitude Survey
This research has been approved by the UW-Stout IRB as required by the Code of
I Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46.
I
Please fill out the following survey. Your feedback is completely anonymous.
RATTI\lG
5
Strongly
Agree
1. I like inquilY based investigations that encourage me to
discover a new concept for myself.
2.
I like to learn chemistlY by the traditional approach of
lecture and discussion.
3.
J like to lealll by ...... .
a.
working several sample problems of a new concept.
b. carefully exploring a new idea using hands-on
activities.
c.
listening and having new concepts explained
carefully.
d.
conducting inquiry based investigations.
4. I find inquiry based investigations frustrating because
there is not enough direction for me to follow.
5.
llike to learn by memorizing steps and formulas to
solve a new chemistIy concept.
6.
] feel I understand a new concept when .... . .
a.
] can successfully solve problems in the textbook.
b. ] can apply the concept to a real life situation.
c.
I am confident enough to work with others and
explain to them what is going on.
4
Agree
3
Neutral
2
Disagree
1
Strongly
Disagree