Engaging Students in Chemistry and Physics with an Active Methodology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.912.13708Keywords:
Motivation, learning outcomes, flipped classroom, laboratory station class, Student motivation questionaryAbstract
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) play an important role in the global economy through technological innovation, creation, and problem-solving in this century. But it is difficult to capture students’ attention to it, and the loss of students in the STEM field hinders society's development, and Portugal is no exception. The students feel that this field is difficult, they feel disappointed as the academic outcomes are more difficult to obtain in the upper secondary, and they easily give up on this area and/or choose other fields. To mesmerize students in the science area and reinforce their positive emotions a project was elaborated based on flipped classrooms with a laboratory station model and started in September 2021. A study case was designed to perceive the impact of the laboratory station methodology and flipped classrooms on the motivation of upper-secondary science students. Self-response questionnaires were applied before and after an intervention phase where students had flipped classrooms and laboratory stations, experimental classes, during one school year. This research concludes that this teaching methodology allows students to maintain motivation throughout the school year. The teacher´s attitudes regarding school, learning and teaching processes, influence students and can trigger positive emotions concerning overcoming school difficulties and barriers they found during their learning journey. It is essential to disseminate these results, as they can help teachers to face the difficulties of engaging students in the learning process in the science field. As the limitation of this study is the small sample (26 students), this study will be replicated with new students in 10th grade and students who were part of this study will continue to be followed as this methodology will continue to be applied in 11grade.
References
Manganelli, S., Cavicchiolo, E., Mallia,L., Biasi, V., Lucidi; F & Alivernini, F .(2019) The interplay between selfdetermined motivation, self-regulated cognitive strategies, and prior achievement in predicting academic performance, Educational Psychology, 39:4, 470-488, DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2019.1572104
Marchak, D., Shvarts-Serebro,I. & Blonder, R. (2021). Crafting Molecular Geometries: Implications of Neuro-
Pedagogy for Teaching Chemical Content. Journal of Chemical Education(2021), online source. Accessed March 15, 2021. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00306
Marchak, D., Shvarts-Serebro, I. & Blonder, R. (2022). Teaching Chemistry by a Creative Approach: Adapting a Teachers’ Course for Active Remote Learning. Journal of Chemical Education
Reddy, K., Haritsa, S.V., Rafiq, A. (2021). Importance of Brain-Based Learning in Effective Teaching Process. In: Thomas, K.A., Kureethara, J.V., Bhattacharyya, S. (eds) Neuro-Systemic Applications in Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72400-9_14.
Marchak, D. & Shvarts-Serebro, I. (2021). 14 The Multidisciplinary Learning Grid: A Conceptual Space to Develop Neuropedagogy-based, Arts-integrated Chemistry Activities. In L. Bigon & N. Shaked (Ed.), The Arts of the Grid: Interdisciplinary Insights on Gridded Modalities in Conversation with the Arts (pp. 204-224). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110733228-017
Körhasan, N. D., & Wang, L. (2016) “Students’ Mental Models of Atomic Spectra.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice 17, 743–755.
Rau, M. A. (2017). “Conditions for the Effectiveness of Multiple Visual Representations in Enhancing STEM Learning.” Educational Psychology Review 29, 717–761.
Sousa, D. A. How the Brain Learns (4th ed.). California: Corwin Press, 2011.
Coutinho, I. R. (2022). Teaching and Learning Chemistry and Physics with a Laboratory Stations Model in a Flipped Classroom – A Preliminary Report. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9, 73-104.
Ribau, I. (2020). Practical Work by Laboratory Stations, an Innovation in Experimental Work. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 8, 17-26. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080103
Tokuhama-Espinosa. (2008). The scientifically substantiated art of teaching: a study in the development of standards in the new academic field of neuroeducation (mind brain and education science). A PhD dissertation, Capella University, June 2008.A2 [58]
Tokuhama-Espinosa. (2013). Making classroom Better. 50 practical application of mind brain and education. W.
W. Norton & Company. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, pp. 227-268.
Lens, W. (2009). Motivation in Education: Enjoying the present while striving for the future. Coimbra presentation handouts.
Lens, W. (2001). How to combine intrinsic task-motivation with the motivational 87 effects of the instrumentality of present tasks for future goals. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 23-36). Dordrecht, Nederlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Cordeiro, P. M. (2010). Construção e validação do Questionário de Motivação Escolar Para a população Portuguesa: Estudos exploratórios [Construction and validation of School Motivation Questionnaire for the Portuguese population: Exploratory studies]. (master thesis dissertation). Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal.
Cordeiro, P. M., Figueira, C. A. P., da Silva, J. T.& Matos, L. (2012). School Motivation Questionnaire for the Portuguese Population: Structure and Psychometric Studies. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, vol. 15 (3), 2012, 1441-1455. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 505
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (3), pp. 461-475.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, pp. 169-189.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52-72). New York: Guilford.
Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2006). Motivation: About the “why” and “what for” of human behavior. In K. Pawlik & G. d’Ydewalle (Eds.), Psychological concept: An international historical perspective (pp. 249-270). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Anderman, E.M., & Wolters, C. (2006). Goals, Values, and Affect. In P. Alexander and P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. (2nd ed., pp. 369-390). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Matos, L., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2009). School culture matters for teacher`s and student’s achievement goals. In A. Kaplan, S. Karabenick, & E. De Groot (Eds.), Culture, self, and motivation: Essays in honour of Martin L. Maehr (pp. 161-181). Information Age.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), pp. 261-271.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, pp. 92-104.
Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals and goal structures. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 21-53). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers’ communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102 (1), pp. 35-58.
Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, pp. 187-194.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (5), pp. 890-898.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student’s learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (3), pp. 260-267.
Anderman, E., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in personal achievement goals and the perceived classroom goal structures across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, pp. 269-298.
Midgley, C. (Ed.). (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students: Use of selfhandicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35 (1), pp. 101-122.
Crede, M., & Phillips, L. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 337–346. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.002
Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 34, 113-
Miller, R. B., & Brickman, S. A. (2004). A model of future-oriented motivation and self-regulation. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 9-33. http;//dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000012343.96370.39
Lens, W., Herrera, D., & Lacante, M. (2004). The role of motivation and future time perspective in educational counseling. Psychologica, 43, 169-180.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Press.
Matos, L., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2007). Achievement goals, Learning strategies and language achievement among Peruvian high school students. Psychologica Belgica, 47 (1/2), pp. 51-70. 506
Ribau, I. (2022). Engaging Students in Chemistry and Physics with an Active Methodology. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(12). 488-
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317-329.
Weinstein, C. E. (1988). Assessment and training of student learning strategies. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 291-316). New York: Plenum Press.
Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (2002). Learning and study strategies inventory user manual.Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing Company, Inc.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classrooms (pp. 149-183). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149–171. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01281.x
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), pp. 33-40.
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie (1991) Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16: 385–407. doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Rozendaal, J. S., Minnaert, A., & Boekaerts, M. (2003). Motivation and self-regulated learning in secondary vocational education: Information-processing type and gender differences.Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 273–289. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(03)00016-5
Hardiman, Mariale (2012). The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model for 21st Century. California Corwin Press.
Lu, Li., Gow, A., & Zhou, A. (2020). The Role of Positive Emotions in Education: A Neuroscience Perspective. Mind, Brain, and Education 14(3) 220–234.
Streb, J., Keis, O., Lau, M., Hille, K., Spitzer, M., & Sosic-Vasic, Z. (2015). Emotional engagement in kindergarten and school children: A self-determination theory perspective. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 4, 102-107.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a selfdetermination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future -directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101860. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., Matos, L., & Lacante, M. (2004). Less is sometimes more: goal content matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (4), pp. 755-764
Froiland, J. M., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and achievement in a diverse high school. Psychology in the Schools, 53(3), 321–336.
Lens, W. (2006). Etudiez bien à l’école, c’est important pour votre avenir: conséquences motivationnelles de la perception de l’utilité [Study hard at school, it is important for your future: Motivational effects of perceived utility]. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 27, 117-133.
Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184–196.
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Lafreniere, M. K. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic school motivation as a function of age: The mediating role of autonomy support. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 77–95
Gottfried, A. E., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver, P. H., & Guerin, D. W. (2007). Multivariate latent change modeling of developmental decline in academic intrinsic math motivation and achievement: Childhood through adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(4), 317–327. 507
Scherrer, V., & Preckel, F. (2019). Development of motivational variables and self-esteem during the school career: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Review of Educational Research, 89(2), 211–258
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N.M., Perencevich, K.C., Taboada, A.D., & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of Stimulating Tasks on Reading Motivation and Comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 232 -
Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 527–540.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing high school students’ engagement by increasing their teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.
Matos, L. (2005). School culture, teacher´s and student´s achievement goals as communicating vessels: A study in Peruvian Secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Leuven, Belgium.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in the Classroom Applying Self-Determination Theory to Educational Practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education: Vol. 1. Student Motivation (pp. 39–73). New York: Academic Press.
Núñez, J.L. & León, J. (2019). Determinants of classroom engagement: a prospective test based on selfdetermination theory, Teachers and Teaching, 25:2, 147-159, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2018.1542297 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1542297.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Isabel Ribau Coutinho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
