You are here:

Order of instruction effects – do they make a difference when teaching senior chemistry with computer based visualizations?
PROCEEDINGS

, Queensland University of Technology, Australia ; , Riverview High School, Canada ; , The University of Queensland, Australia

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Lisbon, Portugal ISBN 978-1-880094-89-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Abstract

This study investigated whether conceptual development is greater if students learning senior chemistry hear teacher explanations and other traditional teaching approaches first then see computer based visualizations or vice versa. Five Canadian chemistry classes, taught by three different teachers, studied the topics of Le Chatelier’s Principle and dynamic chemical equilibria using scientific visualizations with the explanation and visualizations in different orders. Conceptual development was measured using a 12 item test based on the Chemistry Concepts Inventory. Data was obtained about the students’ abilities, learning styles (auditory, visual or kinesthetic) and sex, and the relationships between these factors and conceptual development due to the teaching sequences were investigated. It was found that teaching sequence is not important in terms of students’ conceptual learning gains, across the whole cohort or for any of the three subgroups.

Citation

Mukherjee, M., Fogarty, I. & Geelan, D. (2011). Order of instruction effects – do they make a difference when teaching senior chemistry with computer based visualizations?. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2011--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 3123-3129). Lisbon, Portugal: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 23, 2019 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References