Zimrot Penciptaan Kondisi Konflik 2008 Bentuk Word

8/16/2019 Zimrot Penciptaan Kondisi Konflik 2008 Bentuk Word

1/17

View Online / Journal Homepage / Table of Contents for this issue

This journal is © The Royal Society of

Chemistry

Educational research

Interactive lecture demonstrations: a tool for exploring and enhancingconceptual change

Rachel Zimrot and Guy Ashkenazi*

Department of Science Teaching, The Hebrew University ofJerusalem, Israel email! "uy#$fh$huii$ac$il

%eceived & 'ovember ())&, accepted *+ arch ())-

Abstract: Interactive Lecture Demonstrations (ILD) are a student centered teaching method, in which students are

asked to predict the outcome of an experiment, observe the outcome, and discuss it with respect to their former

expectations. he demonstrations are designed to contradict students! known misconceptions, generate cognitive

conf"ict and dissatisfaction with the existing conception, and promote a process of conceptua" change. An ILD based course was used to exp"ore the effect of cognitive conf"ict on the conceptua" change process, and the ro"e of

student interactivit# in this process. hree ma$or "eve"s of conceptua" change were identified: high % students who

remember the outcome of the demonstration, and exp"ain it using the consensus mode"& medium % students who

can reca"" the outcome, are dissatisfied with their a"ternative mode", but do not switch to the consensus mode"& and"ow % no meaningfu" reco""ection of the outcome, and no change in the a"ternative mode". A mu"tip"e%choice test

based on the "ecture demonstration was given to two groups, one of which on"# observed the demonstrations,

without predicting and discussing. 'e found a significant difference between the groups, with an obvious drop in

students! abi"it# to reca"" the outcome of the demonstrations in the non%interactive group. [Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,

*, + (), -*%

/e#words: Interactive Lecture Demonstrations (ILD), conceptua" change, cognitive conf"ict, menta" mode"s,

"eve"s of conceptua" change

ntro!uction

0cience is a human endeavor to interpret natura" phenomena in an efficient and consistent wa#, which a""ows accurate predictions

coherent exp"anations. 0tudents often interpret natura" phenomena in na1ve wa#s, which ma# differ radica""# from what modern

nce considers as efficient or consistent (Driver et a"., -+2). 0uch persona""# constructed interpretations have proved difficu"t to

nge b# traditiona" instruction. 3ne important goa" of research in science teaching is to construct methods guiding "earners to think

erms of efficient and consistent scientific concepts. his means he"ping individua"s to transform their mental models (interna"

resentations of ob$ects, events and processes individua"s construct in order to predict and exp"ain phenomena) into the consensus

dels (the expressed representations used b# the scientific communit# for the same purpose) (4obert and 5uck"e#, ). his is acess of conceptual change. he change from na1ve menta" mode"s to consensus mode"s is se"dom straightforward, and man# times

oes through intermediate stages which combine parts of both mode"s % a hybrid model (4a"i"i et a"., --6). In this work, we refer to

h na1ve and h#brid mode"s as alternative models, to distinguish them from the scientifica""# accepted consensus mode"s.

A ma$or difference between a"ternative mode"s and consensus mode"s is in the range of their va"idit#. 'hi"e a"ternative mode"s

usua""# on"# consistent with the "imited experience

Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2007, 8 2!, "#7$2""

D

o w n " o a d e d o n , 2 7 e b r u a r # ( ) , (

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/17

View Online

*./%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

base of the individua", the consensus mode"s are based on the co""ective"# accumu"ated experience of

generations of scientists. he efficienc# of consensus mode"s arises from their consistent capabi"it# to

predict and exp"ain a vast range of phenomena using a sma"" set of assumptions and ru"es. herefore, to

faci"itate the process of conceptua" change, students shou"d become fami"iar with a "arger set of natura"

phenomena than the# norma""# encounter in ever#da# "ife. 7or this purpose, we devised an extensive

set of "ecture demonstrations, which introduce students to phenomena that cannot be easi"# predicted or

exp"ained b# their naive persona" mode"s.

3ur approach was part"# inspired b# the work of 8osner and his co""eagues (8osner et a"., -+&0trike and 8osner, --). heir theor# of conceptua" change is based on the historica" deve"opment of

science. he# argued that students wi"" be wi""ing to change their a"ternative mode"s on"# if the# are

dissatisfied with them, and the proposed mode" proves to be more fruitfu". herefore, students shou"d

be confronted with discrepant events and anoma"ous data their existing mode"s cannot account for, in

much the same wa# that new discoveries in science cha""enged existing theories. >oncurrent"#, the

students shou"d be exposed to a consensus mode" which is ab"e to account for the new data. In "ight of

this theor#, methods for promoting conceptua" change have focused on estab"ishing conditions where

the student!s existing conception can be made exp"icit, and then is direct"# cha""enged to create a state

of conf"ict. ?owever, 8osner et a". (-+) admitted that whi"e such a cognitive con%lict is a necessar#

condition for conceptua" change, the# do not expect its mere introduction to be sufficient to induce the

change, nor to make the process straightforward.@ore recent studies of the effect of cognitive conf"ict on promoting conceptua" change have

corroborated this expectation (Limon, & @ason, ). Instead of direct"# addressing the

anoma"ous data and modif#ing their existing conceptions, students exhibit a diverse range of behaviors

in response to being confronted with discrepant events (>hinn and 5rewer, --6, --+& irosh et a".,

--+& 0hepardson and @o$e, ---& @ason, & /ang et a"., ). 7or examp"e, >hinn and 5rewer

(--+) describe a progression in the wa#s in which undergraduate students respond to reported

anoma"ous data: () Ignoring % the outcome simp"# goes unnoticed& ()


3/17

View Online

*..%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

In addition to enhancing students! commitment and exp"icit invo"vement in the conceptua" change

process, the high"# interactive nature of the teaching method a""owed us to investigate the different

wa#s in which the students were invo"ved in this process. o this end, we conducted a combined

ua"itative and uantitative stud# regarding the effect of interactive "ecture demonstrations on students!

conceptua" change process. 3ur research uestions were:

. 'hat are the possib"e effects of the cognitive conf"ict, triggered b# the "ecture demonstrations, on

students! conceptua" change processE

. 'hat is the contribution of the interactive part of the ILD method, as compared with passive"ecture demonstrationsE

"e!agogical Conte#t

he stud# was conducted over a period of three #ears, starting in the fa"" semester of , whi"e

the second author was teaching the course F4enera" >hemistr# for 5io"og# @a$ors!. his is a one%

semester freshman course, given each fa"", with an average enro""ment of students.

Content

he fa"" semester is weeks "ong. 3ne week was devoted to each of the fo""owing topics:

. >hemica" change and conservation of mass.. 8articu"ate nature of matter.

6. ="ectronic structure of meta""ic, ionic and mo"ecu"ar substances.

. Guantities in chemistr#: mass, vo"ume and number.

2. ="ectro"#tic decomposition and reactions in aueous so"ution.

;. herma" energ#, motion and temperature.

*. Interconversion of chemica" and therma" energ#.

+. heories of bonding and mo"ecu"ar structure.

-. Intermo"ecu"ar interactions and ph#sica" properties.

. he idea" gas "aw and the kinetic mo"ecu"ar theor#.

. >o""ision theor# and the rate of chemica" reactions.

. he d#namic nature of microscopic eui"ibrium.6. Acid%base eui"ibrium ( weeks).

=ach week, the c"ass met for two - minute "ecture periods, p"us one - minute sma"" group

recitation session.

Teaching Method

3ne "ecture period each week was devoted to the discussion of "ecture demonstrations. 7or each

topic (except for topic +), we deve"oped a seuence of 6%2 demonstrations, a"" of which can be

exp"ained using the same consensus mode". 0ome of the demonstrations were designed with the

expectation that most students wi"" predict the outcome correct"#, even if the# $ust use common sense

gained from ever#da# experiences. ?owever, at "east one demonstration in each seuence was designed

to contradict predictions based on common a"ternative mode"s, as known from existing misconception"iterature (8fundt and Duit, ) and our own pi"ot stud# (to be described under the @ethodo"og#

section). 7igure shows an examp"e of a common sense experience vs. the con%lict demonstration in

topic , designed to counter mode"s which consider vacuum as exerting a pu""ing force (Hussbaum,

-+2). he demonstrations were pro$ected on a "arge screen, using a video camera connected to the

c"assroom!s pro$ection s#stem, so that a"" students cou"d see them c"ear"#.


D o w n " o a d e d o n , 2 7 e b r u a r # ( ) , (


4/17

View Online

())%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

he structure of the "esson for each demonstration was:

. he instructor shows the c"ass the experimenta" setup, and exp"ains what he is about to do.

. he students se"ect one of the pre%determined possib"e outcomes, and write down an exp"anation

for their prediction on a 8rediction 0heet (7igure ), which is co""ected at the end of c"ass.

6. he students discuss their predictions with their neighbors for 6%2 minutes, and then vote for one of

the possib"e outcomes.

. he instructor disp"a#s the distribution of predictions, and so"icits exp"anations from the c"ass for the different opinions.

2. he instructor performs the demonstration, noting which of the predictions proved correct.

0tudents record the resu"ts on a ommon sense experience vs. conf"ict demonstration.


he demonstration s#stem is composed of an evacuated g"ass bu"b (top), connected through a c"osed va"ve to anopen g"ass containing water with green food co"oring. (b) 'hen the va"ve is open, the water is pushed b# the pressure of the atmosphere into the evacuated bu"b, creating the common sense fee"ing of suction, as if thevacuum was Fpu""ing! the water up. (c) he experiment is repeated, this time with an air%tight c"osed g"ass bu"b atthe bottom. (d) 'hen the va"ve is opened, the water sta#s at the bottom % the vacuum b# itse"f has no Fpu""ing!force, and the rigid wa"" of the container keeps the atmospheric pressure from pushing the "iuid up. 7or a video

of the demonstrations, visit http:99www.fh.huii.ac.i"9gu#9"inks9>=)

8ercobaan diu"ang, ka"i ini dengan bo"a kaca tertutup kedap udara di bagian bawah. (D) /etika katup dibuka, air

tetap di bagian bawah % vakum dengan sendirin#a tidak memi"iki JmenarikJ kekuatan, dan dinding #ang kakuwadah men$aga tekanan atmosfer dari mendorong cairan up. Bntuk video demonstrasi, kun$ungihttp:99www.fh.huii.ac.i"9gu#9"inks9>=


5/17

View Online

()*%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

0truktur pe"a$aran untuk setiap demonstrasi ada"ah:

. Instruktur menun$ukkan ke"as setup eksperimenta", dan men$e"askan apa #ang dia "akukan.

. 8ara siswa memi"ih sa"ah satu hasi" pra%ditentukan mungkin, dan menu"iskan pen$e"asan untuk

prediksi mereka pada Lembar 8rediksi (4ambar ), #ang dikumpu"kan di akhir ke"as.

6. 8ara siswa mendiskusikan prediksi mereka dengan tetangga mereka se"ama 6%2 menit, dankemudian memi"ih sa"ah satu hasi" #ang mungkin.

. Instruktur menampi"kan distribusi prediksi, dan so"icits pen$e"asan dari ke"as untuk berbeda

pendapat.

2. Instruktur me"akukan demonstrasi, mencatat mana dari prediksi terbukti benar. 0iswa mencatat

hasi" pada Lembar ?asi", #ang mereka simpan.

;. Instruktur mempro#eksikan s"ide 8ower8oint #ang menawarkan pen$e"asan #ang berbeda untuk

hasi" eksperimen #ang diamati, han#a satu #ang menggunakan mode" konsensus (4ambar 6).

8en$e"asan "ain didasarkan pada mode"%mode" a"ternatif siswa diketahui J. 8ara siswa mendiskusikan

a"ternatif di antara mereka sendiri dan memi"ih untuk pen$e"asan terbaik.

*. Instruktur membahas hasi" percobaan menggunakan mode" konsensus, sementara secara

eksp"isit referensi mode" a"ternatif siswa dan mencatat kekurangan dan keterbatasan mereka.

8rediksi dan diskusi sebe"um siswa demonstrasi bantuan untuk membangun pen$e"asan

berdasarkan mode" pribadi mereka. hasi"n#a mengu$i va"iditas mode" ini dan menun$ukkan keterbatasan

mereka (menghasi"kan konf"ik kognitif). 8embahasan pen$e"asan a"ternatif, sete"ah me"ihat hasi"n#a,


6/17

View Online

()(%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

menggambarkan domain #ang "ebih "uas dari va"iditas mode" konsensus atas mode"%mode" a"ternatif,

dan karena itu membangun berbuah n#a.



7/17

View Online

()+%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

7igure . 8art of the prediction sheet for topic .K

Demo 6

he noCC"e of an evacuated bu"b is inserted into a f"ask fi""ed with water.

8redict the state of the s#stem after

the va"ve is opened.

8rovide a short exp"anation:

K =xp"anation is based on the mode" that vacuumcauses water to move because matter has anaspiration to fi"" empt# space. =xp"anation 6 is

based on the mode" that vacuum is a negative pressure that pu""s on the water. =xp"anation iscorrect, but is "imited to "iuids. =xp"anation usesthe consensus mode" which ana"#Ces the s#stem interms of partic"es and forces between them.

$etho!ology

In educationa" research, one must take into account the comp"exit# of human thinking and its

inf"uence on the process of "earning. Different individua"s often act different"# under the samecircumstances, and the same individua" ma# act different"# under different circumstances. 5efore tr#ing

to assess the impact of a new teaching method at the popu"ation "eve", one must first get acuainted

with the possib"e different wa#s in which each individua"


vacuum


water a b c d

K he pre%determined distracters for the predictions (a%d above) were taken from the pi"ot stud#. he comp"eteseuence inc"uded four demonstrations. he first is depicted in 7igure a and b& the second used the sames#stem as above with H3 (a brown gas) instead of water& the third is depicted above& and the fourth used H3 air (instead of vacuum). 7or videos of a"" the demonstrations, visithttp:99www.fh.huii.ac.i"9gu#9"inks9>=


8/17

View Online

()5%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

can be affected. 'e therefore emp"o#ed a combined ua"itative%uantitative methodo"og# in this stud#.

Pilot Study

In fa"" we ran the course for the first time, in order to fine tune the teaching method, and

construct a research based uestionnaire for the uantitative stud#. he teaching method was simi"ar to

the one described above, with two changes: there were no pre%determined possib"e outcomes in step ,

and no pre%determined a"ternative exp"anations in step ;. Instead of se"ecting a prediction from a "ist of

options, the students were asked to draw their own prediction on the prediction sheet, before writingtheir exp"anations. he prediction sheets were co""ected at the end of the "esson, and students were

given credit for handing them in, regard"ess of the correctness of their responses.

'e used the prediction sheets to "earn about students! a"ternative mode"s in the context of the

demonstrations. he co""ected data was ana"#Ced according to the facets%schemes method (4a"i"i and

?aCan, ). Initia""#, responses which seeming"# presented the same meaning were grouped together,

even if the# were expressed in somewhat different wording. hen, we identified representative

categories of exp"anator# patterns or strategies emp"o#ed b# the students in addressing particu"ar

situations. hese are the observab"e facets of know"edge. At the "ast step, we grouped facets of

a"ternative know"edge e"icited in different experimenta" contexts around a sma""er number of "ess

specific exp"anator# mode"s. hese mode"s represent the tacit under"#ing schemes of know"edge.

7o""owing the ana"#sis, we comp"eted the "esson p"ans for the subseuent #ears. 'e chose pre%determined predictions for step , and a"ternative exp"anations for step ;.

Hext, we constructed a conceptua" test based on the facets%schemes ana"#sis. In ever# topic, we

chose a sing"e demonstration which proved to be the hardest to predict correct"#, and constructed two

mu"tip"e%choice uestions addressing the specific demonstration. he first uestion in each pair is a

prediction uestion, for which we chose the most common students! predictions as distracters. he

second uestion asks the student to se"ect the scientific exp"anation out of five options, four of which

correspond to the most common a"ternative mode"s. 7igure shows samp"e uestions from two topics.

he uestionnaire was aimed to measure whether students accept the anoma"ous data provided b#

the conf"ict demonstration, and whether the# can recogniCe exp"anations based on the consensus

mode"s taught in the course. he comp"eted uestionnaire was examined for correctness and

inte""igibi"it# b# one other chemistr# professor and two high%schoo" chemistr# teachers. 0ince the

uestions were taken direct"# from the teaching materia"s, content va"idit# is inherent.




9/17

View Online

()6%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

7igure . 8art of the conceptua" test, for topics and .

Qualitative Study

In this part of the stud#, we characteriCed the "eve"s of conceptua" change attained b# the students.

In other words % do the# think about phenomena in terms of consensus mode"s, or do the# sti"" use their

naive menta" mode"sE

his stud# was conducted during the fa"" semester. 7rom a"" the students who fu""#

participated in the c"ass in the first weeks (fi""ing a"" prediction sheets comp"ete"#, and so"ving a""

homework prob"ems), twe"ve were picked for persona" semi%structured interviews. =ach student was

interviewed 6 times throughout the semester, at week %2, week +%- and week (end of the semester).

=ach interview was approximate"# an hour "ong, and inc"uded uestions about "earning in genera", and

specific content uestions. here were two t#pes of content uestions: reca"" and near transfer. "(a) react withexcess "imestone in an open f"ask, re"easingcarbon dioxide gas according to the euation:

>a>3(s) ?>"(a) M

>a>"(a) ?3(a) >3(g)

he graph of the change in weight of thereaction f"ask in the first minute is "inear, witha s"ope of %.6 g9min. he experiment isrepeated with mL of ;. @ ?>"(a). In both cases the acid covers a"" of the stone.'hat wi"" the s"ope of the graph of the changein the s#stem!s weight be, in the first minuteE

a) 0teeper than %.6 g9min.

b) %.6 g9min.

c) Less steep than %.6 g9min.

. 'hat is accepted scientific exp"anationfor this phenomenonE

a) he rate of co""isions between thereactants! partic"es is greater.

b) he number of mo"es of acid is eua".

c) Larger vo"ume means a "arger surface

area.

d) here is "ess acid in the second

experiment.

e) he stronger acid can overcome theactivation barrier more easi"#.


10/17

View Online

()&%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

student reca"" or reconstruct in his mind the conf"icting outcome of the demonstrationE () Does the

student offer an exp"anation to the outcome of the demonstrationE (6) Does the student accept the

consensus mode"E

K his s#stem is simi"ar to the one depicted in figure c, except that the water is he"d in a f"exib"e p"astic bag,instead of a rigid g"ass bu"b. he student is asked to predict what wi"" happen to the s#stem when the va"ve isopened () on the =arth, and () on the moon.

Quantitative Study

his part of the stud# examined the contribution of the interactive part of ILD to the overa"" effect

of "ecture demonstrations on students! conceptua" "eve"s. 'e used an experimenta" comparative design.

5ecause we consider ILD to be the norm in our course, the experimenta" Ftreatment! was the

discontinuation of the interactive part ha"f wa# through the semester. his was done in fa"" . After

week + (that didn!t have an# demonstrations associated with it), the instructor stopped using the

interactive components (steps , 6, and ; of the teaching method) in his "ectures. he instructor sti""

carried out a"" the demonstrations (steps and 2), and discussed students! a"ternative mode"s after showing the resu"t of the demonstration (step *). ?owever, these mode"s were not so"icited from the

students in c"ass, but mere"# presented to them as experience gained from the pi"ot stud# &'hen (

taught this topic last year, many students thought that..)!. 0kipping the prediction and discussion part

of the demonstration freed up a "ot of "ecture time. 0ince the same time was sti"" a""otted for each topic,

the "ectures in the second part of the course inc"uded more detai"ed exp"anations b# the instructor

regarding the consensus mode".

he contro" group, in fa"" 6, continued to "earn using ILDs throughout the entire semester. he

two groups were comparab"e in terms of academic achievement. At the end of the stud#, we obtained

the group grade average of participating students in six other courses (in bio"og#, ph#sics and math),

which showed no significant difference (t N ., p O .) between the treatment group (+2. P .2, n N

2) and the contro" (+6. P 6., n N ).In both groups, we administered the mu"tip"e%choice conceptua" test on the "ast da# of the course.

he students weren!t informed about the test in advance, and therefore the test ref"ects the know"edge

and understanding the# constructed during the course, before the# started preparing for the fina" exam.



Initia"

7igure 2. A near%transfer interview uestion.K


11/17

View Online

()-%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

Results

Qualitative Study

7rom the interviews, we have identified three ma$or "eve"s of conceptua" change. =ach "eve" is

associated with a different degree of impact that the cognitive conf"ict had on the student!s prior mode".

o promote c"arit#, we "imit the presented evidence to students! citations that pertain to topic , which

was described in detai" in the previous sections. his topic had the "argest percent of wrong in%c"ass

predictions % on"# 96 of the students, each #ear, predicted the conf"ict demonstration correct"# (option ain 7igure ), whi"e the other 96 expected at "east part of the water to go up into the vacuum (near"#

eua""# sp"it between options b and c in 7igure ). 0imi"ar "eve"s of conceptua" change were identified

across a"" topics.

*igh +evel

At this "eve", the students reca""ed what the# saw in c"ass, the# reca""ed their previous exp"anation,

and the# changed their exp"anation in the interview to one which conforms with the consensus mode".

In most cases, the students dec"ared that the conf"ict demonstration he"ped them to sort out their

conceptions and to change them. 7or examp"e:

G: In demo 6 Q7igures c, d, #ou now sa# that #ou remembered that the water sta#ed down, but

#ou predicted something e"se, as #ou can see in #our sheet. 'hat did #ou fee" when #ou saw adifferent outcomeEA: It changed m# conception. It changed m# conception Qrepeating, for emphasis. Like, m#

previous conception was from that I had no know"edge of chemistr#, and I didn!t dea" with such

things. And m# conception was that the vacuum is rea""# a sort of suction force, and because of

this I thought the water wi"" go up. Q... here wi"" be here the same vacuum as here Qpoints at thetop and the bottom bu"bs in option Fc! in 7igure , because it is a kind of a suction force, and wi""

resu"t in an eua"iCation of pressures. 5ut after we, "ike, saw % I understood wh# it is not "ike that

Q...

G: 'hen #ou saw it, did #ou change #our conception at the same momentEA: Ho. I was ver# surprised when I saw it. I!m speaking about during the course, after the

instructor exp"ained it to us, and after I read about these topics Q. And especia""# after I saw it, that

it rea""# doesn!t happen. 5ecause of this I think these demonstrations are ver# important. 5ecauseif #ou $ust came and to"d me, "ike te"" me in c"ass that someone did this experiment, show me thesedrawings and te"" me Fthis is what happened!, I probab"# wou"d not remember it now. 5ut I

remember it because I remember it surprised me, and I remember I pondered over it. Like I didn!t

understand wh# it is so. It is a process.

here was some variabi"it# within this broad "eve". 0ome of the students that successfu""# used the

consensus mode" to exp"ain the "ecture demonstration, did not succeed in predicting or exp"aining the

answer to the near%transfer uestion b# themse"ves. ?owever, these students were ab"e to answer

correct"# after being prompted b# the interviewer to go back to the prediction sheet and "ook for a

simi"ar situation the# have a"read# seen in c"ass.

edium +evel At this "eve" the students reca""ed what the# saw in c"ass, the# reca""ed their previous exp"anation,

and the# were aware that it was inadeuate to account for the outcome of the conf"ict demonstration.

?owever, the mode" the# used to exp"ain this outcome in the interview was not the consensus mode",

but a different a"ternative mode". he# were often unsure about their new mode", and used it

hesitating"#. 7or examp"e:

Q'hi"e answering the near%transfer uestion in topic % 7igure 2 @a#be the Qatmospheric

pressure can inf"uence outside of the bag, and it wi"" be ha"f%and%ha"f Q... because then there wi""

be eua" pressures. here is gravit# that pu""s downward, and on the other hand it is pu""ed Qup




12/17

View Online

()/%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

because of the vacuum, then it probab"# eua"iCes there Q... I "earned in c"ass that vacuum is not a

force, but somewhere. Qhesitates it is sti"" "ike. but the vacuum pu""sR I don!t remember what

caused the vacuum to pu"" % this is the princip"e I!m tr#ing to reca"". I know it is not a force, butthere is something in it that causes a force.

G: Let!s get back to the "esson. In demo 6 Q7igures c, d, the instructor opened the va"ve. Do #ou

remember what happenedE

A: It seems to me now that the water didn!t go up. I don!t remember. QAsks for verification SesEhere is no atmospheric pressure to push them up. here is $ust the vacuum that I don!t remember

what it does. Q.G: Sou wrote that the vacuum wi"" cause it to go up. 'h#E

A: 5ack then I was sure that vacuum is a force, and when #ou have vacuum it pu""s. I didn!t knowthen about the force of atmospheric pressure, about a"" these things. Q.

G: 'hen #ou see things that don!t behave as #ou expected.

A: It amaCed me. I didn!t have the sma""est bit of idea wh# it didn!t go up. I tried to think wh# it

happened, but no idea came to m# mind.G: 'hen #ou think of something and it comes out the opposite, does it frustrate #ou or do #ou

want to know wh#E

A: I want to know wh#, because it anno#s me that I!m not rightR

Again, there is some variation in this categor#. 0ome students $ust switched from one na1ve mode"

to another. 3thers, "ike the one in the examp"e, made an effort to incorporate the consensus mode" intotheir existing scheme. 'hi"e this student strugg"ed to make sense of the new mode", she did not

abandon her previous mode". his resu"ted in a h#brid mode", in which the pu""ing force of vacuum

comp"ements the pushing force of the atmospheres.

+o- +evel

0tudents that be"ong to this group did not remember the outcome of the demonstration. 'ithout a

vivid memor# of the demonstration, the# cou"d on"# re"# on their a"ternative mode"s when the# tried to

reco""ect what happened in "ecture. his resu"ted in students giving incorrect predictions to experiments

the# had actua""# observed in the past. 7or examp"e:

G: >an #ou exp"ain what #ou saw in demo Qthe common sense experience in 7igures a, bE

A: I remember that what I was thinking wasn!t correct Q"aughs in embarrassment, but I sti""remember what I thought then.

G: 'hat did #ou think thenE

A: hat there is some kind of aspiration of matter to spread out into the vacuum. hat is, it wi""f"ow in the direction of the vacuum, and fi"" the bu"b. 5ut I think this is not the correct exp"anation.

Q. It is "ike drinking with a straw, where the vacuum is euiva"ent to a pressure acting on the

"iuid, pu""ing it up % it Qthe "iuid seeks to fi"" it Qthe vacuum. Q. It is not rea""# a force % the

vacuum has no force, but because matter seeks to fi"" it, so to speak, then the pressures! differencesare those that push it up.

G: Do #ou remember what happened in demo 6 Q7igures c, dE

A: QAsks herse"f hesitant"# >ou"d it be Fd! Qin 7igure E QLaughs in embarrassment I don!t

remember. Q0udden"# sounds more sure 3/ % there is a vacuum on top, so it wou"d eui"ibrate,

and it cou"d be c as we"". It is actua""# a ba"ance between the two bu"bs, something "ike that, because it is a c"osed s#stem, and the pressures between the bu"bs want to be ba"anced and wi""

reach some state of eui"ibrium.

G: his is what #ou wrote in the prediction sheet. Let me te"" #ou what actua""# happened % thewater didn!t go up.

A: 3/. Qsounds doubtfu", gives a puCC"ed "ook

G: 'hen I remind #ou now, can #ou reco""ect wh# it didn!t go upE

A: I rea""# don!t remember. QAsking herse"f 'h# didn!t it go upE @a#be because it is a "iuid,contrar# to a gas, where the gas spread out in the second demo and fi""ed the container, and the

water didn!t.




13/17

View Online

().%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

his is an examp"e of a student who cannot "et go of her prior scheme that matter f"ows

purposefu""# in order to fi"" the vacuum. =ven though she!s aware that her exp"anation is incorrect, she

sti"" used the same argument when answering the near%transfer uestion. ?er inabi"it# to exp"ain the

conf"ict demo in c"ass has "ed her to u"timate"# ignore this data, and she cou"dn!t remember the fact that

it contradicted her expectation. 'hen re%confronted with the anoma"ous data, she chose to exc"ude it,

b# suggesting that whi"e her mode" works we"" for gases, "iuids might behave different"#.

3ther variations of "ow "eve" responses inc"uded students who $ust dec"ared the# did not

understand the sub$ect matter, and a few cases of students who actua""# be"ieved that the# saw whatthe# expected to see.

o summariCe, the three "eve"s differ in their abi"it# to reca"" and exp"ain the phenomena the# saw,

and this abi"it# is connected to the degree to which the# changed their prior mode"s. 0tudents at the "ow

"eve" of conceptua" change cannot reca"" the outcome of the conf"ict demonstrations. he# have not

been affected b# the conf"ict, and did not undergo an# conceptua" change. 0tudents at the medium "eve"

of conceptua" change can reca"" the outcome of the conf"ict demonstration, but cannot give a

scientifica""# accepted exp"anation. he# have been affected b# the conf"ict, but their conceptua"

change is "imited, because the# cou"d not give up their a"ternative mode"s. At the high conceptua"

change "eve", students can both reca"" and give a scientifica""# accepted exp"anation. he# have

comp"eted the process, as the# started out with an a"ternative mode", and can now use the consensus

mode".

Quantitative Study

In "ight of our findings in the ua"itative research, we c"assified students! responses to each pair of

uestions on the conceptua" test (7igure ) into simi"ar categories. A student!s understanding of a

specific topic was c"assified as high conceptual level on"# if both the prediction (first uestion) and

exp"anation (second uestion) were correct& as medium conceptual level if the prediction was correct

but the exp"anation was incorrect& and as lo- conceptual level if the prediction was incorrect,

regard"ess of the correctness of the exp"anation.

0ince the goa" of science teaching is for students to achieve a high conceptua" "eve", we ca"cu"ated

the students! conceptual score b# counting the number of topics in which the# attained a high

conceptua" "eve" (both exp"anation and prediction are correct). 5ecause we changed the teachingmethod for the treatment group partwa# through the semester, we ca"cu"ated two conceptua" scores for

each student % a score for 8art I of the course (topics %*, maximum score N *), and a score for 8art II

(topics -%6, maximum score N 2). 5# "ooking primari"# at the high conceptua" "eve" we a"so minimiCe

the effect of random guessing, because the chances of correct"# guessing both the prediction and the

exp"anation are between : and :.

o determine the effect of the experimenta" change in teaching method, we need to compare the

two groups! conceptua" score in 8art II, in which passive "ecture demonstrations were used with the

treatment group. 5ecause the groups are not necessari"# euiva"ent, we need to contro" for an# disparit#

that might affect the difference in this conceptua" score between the two groups. 'e expected, and

found, a statistica""# significant corre"ation between the students! conceptua" scores on part I and on

part II, with


14/17

View Online

(*)%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

are summariCed in ab"e , and show a statistica""# significant difference in conceptua" score between

the groups p 0.00"!. here is a medium positive effect d / 0.8! of the interactive method over

passive "ecture demonstrations.

o better understand the meaning of this difference, it is instructive to see how the distribution of

conceptua" "eve"s changes when interactivit# is discontinued, as shown in ab"e . In the fu""#

interactive course (contro" group), on"# 6U of students! responses are at a "ow conceptua" "eve", and

more than 2U of the responses show a high conceptua" "eve". 0imi"ar numbers appear in the first part

of the treatment, which was a"so taught with ILD. ?owever, when interactivit# is discontinued in the

second part of the treatment course, this situation reverses % as man# as 2.+U of the responses are at a

"ow conceptua" "eve", and on"# 6+.6U are at the high conceptua" "eve".

It is a"so interesting to note that in a"" four cases a "arge ma$orit# of the students! responses is

either at a high or a "ow conceptua" "eve", and on"# a sma"" part (U%2U) is at a medium "eve".

%iscussion

Answer to first research question

he first research uestion in this stud# was: W 'hat are the possible e%%ects o% the cognitive

con%lict, triggered by the lecture demonstrations, on students1 conceptual change processEX 3ur resu"ts

show that the effects are varied, and conceptua" change can be an evo"utionar#, rather than

revo"utionar#, process. 'hen confronted with a discrepant event, students ma# respond in different

wa#s, and attain different "eve"s of conceptua" change, that are in overa"" agreement with the taonomyo% responses to anomalous data in science proposed b# >hin and 5rewer (--+). ?owever, there are a

few points in which this taxonom# fa""s short of describing important features that are re"evant to

teaching with "ecture demonstrations, which we wou"d "ike to emphasiCe.

he high conceptua" change "eve" matches theory change in the taxonom#, in which individua"s

abandon their former be"ief in favor of a new one. 'e noticed that the term



ab"e . AH>3VA resu"ts for the effectK ofinteractivit# on students! conceptua" achievementscore

(%2) in 8art II of the course.Ad$usted @eans P 0D

Interactive LD 8assive LD P d

.22 P .; . P . . .

K d is >ohen!s effect siCe. .+ is considered a mediumeffect.

ab"e . 8ercent distribution of conceptua" "eve"s, ineach part of the two runs.

Interactive Interactivit#

hroughout Discontinued

>onceptua"

Leve"

8art I(ILD)

8art II(ILD)

8art I(ILD)

8art II(LD)

*igh 2+.; 2.+ 2.- 6+.6

edium 2. .+ 2.- -.-

+o- ;.6 6. 6. 2.+

LD N passive "ecture demonstrations.


15/17

View Online

(**%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

Fabandon! might be too strong, as some students who attained this "eve" for the "ecture demonstration

sti"" used their previous mode" in other contexts (the near%transfer uestion). As novices, the# probab"#

sti"" "ack the abi"it# to recogniCe nove" situations in which the new"# acuired mode" wou"d be

app"icab"e and fruitfu". Heverthe"ess, after accepting the new mode" in one context, it was fair"# eas#

for them to app"# it, upon prompting, in other contexts. 'hen students attained a high "eve" of

conceptua" change in a specific topic, the# often associated this achievement with their positive

experience in reso"ving the cognitive conf"ict induced b# the "ecture demonstration.

he medium conceptua" change "eve" matches peripheral theory change, in which individua"smake minor changes to their theories without giving up the core components. hese students were

aware of the conf"ict between their existing mode" and the outcome, tried to change their exp"anation to

accommodate the outcome, but sti"" did not accept the consensus mode". his was because the students

found it hard to re"inuish their prior be"iefs, or because of poor understanding of the consensus mode".

his process was accompanied b# a fee"ing of strugg"e between the two mode"s and evident discomfort,

which were a direct resu"t of the unreso"ved cognitive conf"ict. he uantitative data shows that this

"eve" is the "east popu"ated % on"# U%2U of the answers to the conceptua" test fa"" in this categor#, in

which the student remembers the outcome, but fai"s to exp"ain it using the consensus mode". his might

indicate that students do not sta# in such a state of discomfort for a "ong period of time. ?owever, we

can!t te"" if this means that these students reso"ved their conf"ict b# embracing the consensus mode", or

b# receding to a "ower "eve" and re$ecting the anoma"ous data.he most surprising to us was the "arge percentage of responses which fe"" into the "ow "eve" of

conceptua" change. At this "eve", students fai" to reca"" the outcome of a demonstration that was

performed in front of their e#es, and contradicted their expectations. his matches severa" of the "ow

"eve" responses in the taxonom# % ignoring , re3ection, and eclusion, in a"" of which the individua" does

not accept the data. he students at this "eve" ho"d so strong"# to their existing mode"s, that the# fai" to

experience the cognitive conf"ict. o use a c"ichY, instead of sa#ing 4( had to see it to believe it X, such

students shou"d sa# WI had to believe it to see it&. he# are probab"# aware of the conf"ict at the time of

the demonstration, but their inabi"it# to formu"ate a meaningfu" exp"anation for what the# saw "eads to

rapid fading of an# memor# of the discrepant event. It seems that the cognitive conf"ict method fai"s for

those students who need it the most % students who have a difficu"t# to change their conceptions.

Answer to second research question

he second research uestion was W-hat is the contribution o% the interactive part o% the (+5

method, as compared -ith passive lecture demonstrationsEX 3ur resu"ts show that the interactive

component of the "ecture demonstration p"a#s an important ro"e in promoting students! conceptua"

change. Its discontinuation at the midd"e of the semester resu"ted in a statistica""# significant drop in

students! conceptua" score. he rate of high conceptua" "eve" answers decreased, and the rate of "ow

"eve" conceptua" answers increased. 'ithout the interactive component, more than ha"f of the students

saw a demonstration which shou"d have contradicted their expectations, but had no meaningfu"

reco""ection of this as a discrepant event. his resu"t is in agreement with the work of >rouch et a".

() who studied different modes of "ecture demonstrations in ph#sics. he# found that $ust

observing a demonstration gave students "itt"e advantage over not seeing a demonstration at a"",

especia""# in terms of their abi"it# to exp"ain the outcome of the demonstration. Asking the students to

predict the outcome of the demonstration before it was carried out had a significant impact on their

abi"it# to repeat the prediction correct"# and give an acceptab"e exp"anation at the end of the course.




16/17

View Online

(*(%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i


Chemistry

he contribution of the interactive component of the "ecture demonstrations can be attributed to

two factors. he first is that the prediction and discussion steps make the students exp"icit"# aware of

their existing mode"s. his increases their awareness to the conf"ict, and their need to reso"ve it. It is

harder to ignore an unexpected resu"t after #ou have committed to it in writing, and exp"ained it to #our

friends. he second is that ILD can be c"assified as an Interactive =ngagement teaching method %

designed to promote conceptua" understanding through interactive engagement of students in minds%on

activities which #ie"d immediate feedback through discussion with peers and9or instructors. 0uch

methods have been shown to consistent"# produce better conceptua" understanding over traditiona" passive "ectures in ph#sics teaching (?ake, --+, ). It is possib"e that the socia" interaction and

active "earning are responsib"e for the positive effect of ILDs, and not the cognitive conf"ict generated

b# the discrepant event.

Conclusions

. 'e know that chemistr# demonstrations are fun to do, provide concrete examp"es of abstract

concepts, and are a potentia" source of anoma"ous data that can trigger conceptua" change (5odner,

). ?owever, much of this potentia" is "ost if a demonstration is simp"# carried out in front of a

passive audience. o be effective, "ecture demonstrations have to engage a"" students in activities

such as prediction and discussion.. >ognitive conf"ict is not a magic wand that can so"ve a"" of the difficu"ties associated with

conceptua" change. It he"ps man# students to achieve a high "eve" of conceptua" change, but it a"so

fai"s for man# others. 0ti"", ILDs can provide a perfect setting for supporting c"assroom

discussions, without emphasiCing confrontation with students! prior conceptions (AshkenaCi and

'eaver, *). herefore, both supporters of cognitive conf"ict strategies and their opponents

(such as 0mith et a"., --6) can find use for them.

6. ILDs can be used without prediction sheets, $ust b# co""ecting students! votes with an e"ectronic

c"assroom response s#stem (for examp"e: 'ood and 5ra#fog"e, ;). ?owever, we encourage

instructors who use ILDs to ask students to write down their predictions, and co""ect the prediction

sheets at the end of c"ass. Hot on"# does this make students more committed to their prediction, it

is a"so an inva"uab"e source of information for the instructor. It is a rare opportunit# for "ecturers in"arge c"asses to get to know their students! wa#s of thinking in a ver# detai"ed wa#. 0uch use of

ILD combines its effectiveness as a teaching method for enhancing conceptua" change, with its

he"pfu"ness as a research instrument for exp"oring this process and improving one!s practice as a

teacher.

&c'nowle!gement

'e wou"d "ike to thank ?eather 0k"enicka of ommunit# and echnica" >o""ege for her

he"pfu" comments.

ReferencesAshkenaCi 4. and 'eaver 4.>., (*), Interactive "ecture demonstrations as a context for c"assroom

discussion : effective design and presentation, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, +.

+;%-;.

5odner 4.@., (), 'h# "ecture demonstrations are Fexocharmic! for both students and their

instructors, 6niversity Chemical Education, 2, 6%62.>hinn >.A. and 5rewer '.7., (--+), An empirica" text of taxonom# of responses to anoma"ous data in

science, ournal o% Research in cience 9eaching, 62, ;6%;2.




17/17

View Online

(*+%$ 0imrot and 1$

2sh3ena4i

>rouch >.?., 7agen A.8., >a""an Z.8. and @aCur =., (), >"assroom demonstrations: "earning too" or

entertainmentE :merican ournal o% Physics, *, +62%+6+.

Driver hi"dren!s ideas and the "earning of science, in . and Hoh ., (), ognitive conf"ict and intuitive ru"es, (nternational ournal

o% cience Education, , 2*%;-.'ood >. and 5ra#fog"e 5., (;), Interactive demonstrations for mo"e ratios and "imiting reagent,

ournal o% Chemical Education, +6, *%*+.


http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28

Documents

Zimrot Penciptaan Kondisi Konflik 2008 Bentuk Word