Vickie M. Williamson

When do spatial abilities support student comprehension of STEM visualizations

Spatial visualization abilities are positively related to performance on science, technology, engineering, and math tasks, but this relationship is influenced by task demands and learner strategies. In two studies, we illustrate these interactions by demonstrating situations in which greater spatial ability leads to problematic performance. In Study 1, chemistry students observed and explained sets of simultaneously presented displays depicting chemical phenomena at macroscopic and particulate levels of representation. Prior to viewing, the students were asked to make predictions at the macroscopic level. Eye movement analyses revealed that greater spatial ability was associated with greater focus on the prediction-relevant macroscopic level. Unfortunately, that restricted focus was also associated with lower-quality explanations of the phenomena. In Study 2, we presented the same displays but manipulated whether participants were asked to make predictions prior to viewing. Spatial ability was again associated with restricted focus, but only for students who completed the prediction task. Eliminating the prediction task encouraged attempts to integrate the displays that related positively to performance, especially for participants with high spatial ability. Spatial abilities can be recruited in effective or ineffective ways depending on alignments between the demands of a task and the approaches individuals adopt for completing that task.

Teaching Chemistry Conceptually

This chapter by Williamson presents teaching chemical concepts through implementing three levels of chemical concepts. This chapter upgrades the Chaps. 1– 3 and 6 of this book. Williamson concludes that traditionally, chemistry at all educational levels has been taught as a mathematical course that emphasized algorithmic problem solving almost exclusively. Because research showed that students at all levels have trouble with conceptual understanding of chemistry, a new approaches to teach chemistry had to emerge. Some chemistry teachers at all levels of education intuitively teach chemistry conceptually, many still have difficulties how to do this and what teaching strategies are available to them. Conceptual teaching, as a teaching strategy emphasizes students’ ability to explain relationships, to predict outcomes, to visualize/explain particle behavior, and to understand the macroscopic, particulate, symbolic, and mathematical levels of chemical concepts presentations. In this chapter, author highlights different teaching strategies to make chemistry teaching more conceptually and less mathematical when that is not really necessary to deeply understand the chemical concepts. These strategies can be used with large or small classes and they include the application of macroscopic representations, particulate representations (both dynamic and static models), group problem solving, algorithmic and conceptual assessments, etc.

How do general chemistry students’ impressions, attitudes, perceived learning, and course performance vary with the arrangement of homework questions and E-text?

Two large sections of first-semester general chemistry were assigned to use different homework systems. One section used MindTap, a Cengage Learning product, which presents short sections of the textbook with embedded homework questions; such that students could read the textbook section then answer one or more questions in the same screen. The other section used Online Web Learning (OWL-version 2) also from Cengage Learning, which presents homework questions that contains links to open the textbook in a separate window. Findings showed no difference between the groups in any course grades, with both groups strongly indicating that they learned from their system. During a second-semester chemistry course taught by the same instructor, all students used OWLv2. At the end of the second semester, students who had used MindTap during the first semester were given a delayed survey, containing Likert-scaled and open-response questions dealing with students’ perceived learning/perceived level of understanding with each system, how easy each system was to use, and the advantages/disadvantages of each system. In addition, students were asked to compare the two systems giving their homework preference. Students were heavily positive towards the MindTap system. Further data was collected to compare students who used MindTap for the first semester and OWL for the second-semester with those who used the systems in reverse order, using the same survey. Results showed that students indicated significantly higher perceived learning with MindTap and better attitudes and opinions of MindTap, with its single window arrangement, often citing that they read more with MindTap.