Abstract
The level of students’ engagement during active learning activities conducted in small groups is important to understanding the effectiveness of these activities. The Interactive–Constructive–Active–Passive (ICAP) framework is a way to determine the cognitive engagement of these groups by analyzing the conversations that occur while student groups work on an activity. This study used qualitative content analysis and ICAP to investigate cognitive engagement during group activities in a General Chemistry course at the question level, a finer grain size than previously studied. The analysis determined the expected engagement based on question design and the observed engagement based on group conversations. Comparisons of expected and observed engagement showed cases of mismatch, and further analysis determined that incorrect model use, unfamiliar scientific vocabulary, and difficulty moving between molecular representations were all contributing themes to the observed mismatches. The implications of these findings with regard to teaching and research are discussed.
Highlights
Active learning (AL) strategies have been shown to enhance student success beyond traditional methods (Kuh et al, 2005; National Research Council, 2012; Freeman et al, 2014), often improving outcomes for students who have been historically underrepresented within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (Lorenzo et al, 2006; Haak et al, 2011; Eddy and Hogan, 2014)
(1) What range of engagement modes are expected during a general chemistry AL activity based on the question design?
Key Question 9 from the same activity (SD-KQ9) asks students to provide an algebraic expression for MD
Summary
Active learning (AL) strategies have been shown to enhance student success beyond traditional methods (Kuh et al, 2005; National Research Council, 2012; Freeman et al, 2014), often improving outcomes for students who have been historically underrepresented within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (Lorenzo et al, 2006; Haak et al, 2011; Eddy and Hogan, 2014) For these reasons, AL strategies have been at the center of national calls for the adoption of evidence-based instructional practices to transform education in STEM fields (National Research Council, 2012; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), 2012).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
