The sequence of learning cycle activities in high school chemistry

Abraham, Michael R.; Renner, John W.

doi:10.1002/tea.3660230205

Cited by 98 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This pedagogical development was somewhat serendipitous as it was motivated by what we now take as a misinterpretation of intellectual development. The active approach of the learning cycle in science instruction at the high school and college level in chemistry and biology has resulted in greater achievement and retention, improved reasoning ability, and superior process skills when compared to the traditional lecture approach (Abraham & Renner, 1986;Ebert-May, Brewer, & Allred, 1997).…”

Section: Active Engagement By the Studentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning stoichiometry: a comparison of text and multimedia formats

Evans¹,

Yaron²,

Leinhardt³

2008

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Active Engagement By the Studentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning stoichiometry: a comparison of text and multimedia formats

Evans¹,

Yaron²,

Leinhardt³

2008

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The idea of a learning cycle has been mentioned in chemistry education in a number of constructivist cases (Abraham and Renner, 1986;Abraham, 2005). Work by Libby (1995) in organic chemistry also included an exploration of how learning cycle instruction can also be improved by a cycle within the instruction.…”

Section: Connections Within Processmentioning

confidence: 98%

Connections Between Pedagogical and Epistemological Constructivism: Questions for Teaching and Research in Chemistry

Wink

2006

Found Chem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rich and ongoing debate about constructivism in chemistry education includes questions about the relationship, for better or worse, between applications of the theory in pedagogy and in epistemology. This paper presents an examination of the potential to use connections of epistemological and pedagogical constructivism to one another. It examines connections linked to the content, processes, and premises of science with a goal of prompting further research in these areas.

show abstract

“…based on the Karplus learning cycle (Abraham and Renner 1986;Atkin and Karplus 1962;Karplus 1977), informed by subsequent research and cognitive learning theory, and expanded in models such as the BSCS 5E learning cycle (Brown and Abell 2007;Bybee et al 2006;Eisenkraft 2003;Lawson 2001). The Karplus cycle is intended to reflect scientific inquiry in teaching and learning, and has three major phases: exploration, concept formation, and application (Fig.…”

Section: Model Of Guided-inquiry Instruction Our Model For Guided-inqmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning of Core Disciplinary Ideas: Efficacy Comparison of Two Contrasting Modes of Science Instruction

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science curricula and teaching methods vary greatly, depending in part on which facets of science are emphasized, e.g., core disciplinary ideas or science practices and process skills, and perspectives differ considerably on desirable pedagogies. Given the multi-faceted nature of science and the variety of teaching methods found in practice, it is no simple task to determine what teaching approaches might be most effective and for what purposes. Research into relative efficacy faces considerable challenges, with confounding factors, ambiguities, conflations, and lack of controls being threats to validity. We provide a conceptual framework characterizing the many teaching strategies found in practice as being variants of two fundamental contrasting epistemic modes, and we disentangle conflations of terms and confusions of constructs in both teaching practice and research. Instructional units for two science topics were developed in parallel in the alternative epistemic modes, differing in concept learning paths but otherwise equivalent. We conducted a randomized controlled study of the comparative efficacy of the two modes for learning core disciplinary ideas, using operationally defined active-direct and guided-inquiry teaching methods. Five middle school teachers taught each unit in both modes over 4 years of classroom trials in an 8-day summer program for eighth grade students. Student understanding of core ideas was assessed using pre-and post-tests, and learning gains were analyzed by mode, teacher, topic, and trial year. Although routes to concept understanding were very different in the two modes, eventual student learning gains were similar, within statistical variation. Efficacy variations between and within teachers were greater than between modes, indicating the importance of teacher effects on student achievement. Findings suggest that teachers need not be bound to one mode throughout and can flexibly decide on the pedagogical approach for each concept and situation, on several grounds other than efficacy of core content acquisition alone.

show abstract

The sequence of learning cycle activities in high school chemistry

Cited by 98 publications

References 9 publications

Learning stoichiometry: a comparison of text and multimedia formats

Learning stoichiometry: a comparison of text and multimedia formats

Connections Between Pedagogical and Epistemological Constructivism: Questions for Teaching and Research in Chemistry

Learning of Core Disciplinary Ideas: Efficacy Comparison of Two Contrasting Modes of Science Instruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About