Learning About Emergence and Heat Transfer (Chi) - Revision history

Margr: /* Explanation */

2008-01-16T20:54:00Z

Explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:54, 16 January 2008
Line 116:		Line 116:
	The pretest will consist of approximately 50-60 items, in both multiple-choice and constructed-response format addressing each of three topics: emergence, diffusion, and heat transfer. The pre-test items will be developed with inputs from the Colorado School of Mines, since they will administer a misconception exam to their students in order to identify common misconceptions about diffusion and heat transfer at the college level. The pre-test will assess all 10 attributes that distinguish emergent from direct processes (that is, the micro-level, the macro, the and the interlevel attributes, as well as the aggregating mechanism, which we cannot discuss in this short project plan). We currently conceive of these attributes as knowledge components.		The pretest will consist of approximately 50-60 items, in both multiple-choice and constructed-response format addressing each of three topics: emergence, diffusion, and heat transfer. The pre-test items will be developed with inputs from the Colorado School of Mines, since they will administer a misconception exam to their students in order to identify common misconceptions about diffusion and heat transfer at the college level. The pre-test will assess all 10 attributes that distinguish emergent from direct processes (that is, the micro-level, the macro, the and the interlevel attributes, as well as the aggregating mechanism, which we cannot discuss in this short project plan). We currently conceive of these attributes as knowledge components.

	In contrast to our prior design, the training module for the Experimental condition will include materials on both the general emergent schema as well as the specific concept diffusion. The Experimental training module will begin by introducing the emergent schema, describing everyday examples of emergent and direct processes and identifying explicit features for recognizing and explaining each type. It will then describe diffusion, with mapping in the form of descriptive text and questions embedded in the text and the simulations. These mappings will be designed to help students recognize diffusion as an emergent process. The Map Control training module will be identical to the Experimental module, except that the diffusion portion will not include mapping. The Control module will omit the introduction to emergence, and the description of diffusion will not include mapping. Instead, the Control module will provide additional practice in solving quantitative diffusion problems. All three modules will include dynamic simulations of diffusion at both the macro (outwardly visible) and micro (molecular) levels.		In contrast to our prior design, the training module for the Experimental condition will include materials on both the general emergent schema as well as the specific concept diffusion. The Experimental training module will begin by introducing the emergent schema, describing everyday examples of emergent and direct processes and identifying explicit features for recognizing and explaining each type. It will then describe diffusion, with mapping in the form of descriptive text and questions embedded in the text and the simulations. These mappings will be designed to help students recognize diffusion as an emergent process. The No Map Control training module will be identical to the Experimental module, except that the diffusion portion will not include mapping. The Control module will omit the introduction to emergence, and the description of diffusion will not include mapping. Instead, the Control module will provide additional practice in solving quantitative diffusion problems. All three modules will include dynamic simulations of diffusion at both the macro (outwardly visible) and micro (molecular) levels.

	The training posttest will consist of approximately the same items as the pre-test, with some additional new ones. Diffusion questions will include quantitative problems as well as items that assess qualitative understanding.		The training posttest will consist of approximately the same items as the pre-test, with some additional new ones. Diffusion questions will include quantitative problems as well as items that assess qualitative understanding.

Margr: /* Explanation */

2008-01-16T20:53:23Z

Explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:53, 16 January 2008
Line 112:		Line 112:
	The gist of our project plan is to run a modified version of the 2005 study in the Chemistry LearnLab. With assistance from David Yaron, chair of the chemistry course committee, we will modify existing treatment materials (including all the assessment questions) to make them suitable for college-level instruction, and we will create new materials for the control conditions. We will pilot the materials in pullout studies with college students in the fall semester of 2007. The study itself will be run in Dr. Yaron’s Modern Chemistry II LearnLab course in the spring semester of 2008, and again in 2009, implementing modifications based on what we learn from the 2008 data. Each year the study will involve approximately 120 students, and they will use the materials during their two-hour recitation classes. The study design is modified to unconfound our prior design, although that prior confound was intentional because we were seeking a “proof of concept” of our materials and we did not have enough participants to unconfound the effect of the emergent module from the effects of mapping prompts.		The gist of our project plan is to run a modified version of the 2005 study in the Chemistry LearnLab. With assistance from David Yaron, chair of the chemistry course committee, we will modify existing treatment materials (including all the assessment questions) to make them suitable for college-level instruction, and we will create new materials for the control conditions. We will pilot the materials in pullout studies with college students in the fall semester of 2007. The study itself will be run in Dr. Yaron’s Modern Chemistry II LearnLab course in the spring semester of 2008, and again in 2009, implementing modifications based on what we learn from the 2008 data. Each year the study will involve approximately 120 students, and they will use the materials during their two-hour recitation classes. The study design is modified to unconfound our prior design, although that prior confound was intentional because we were seeking a “proof of concept” of our materials and we did not have enough participants to unconfound the effect of the emergent module from the effects of mapping prompts.

	The design consists of three groups. The Experimental group is comparable to our previous experimental group, in that the students will receive both the general emergent schema training as well as mapping of diffusion to emergence. The Map Control group will receive the emergence schema training but without any explicit mapping (for the simulation parts of the instruction, they will receive attention prompts). The Control group is comparable to our previous control group, in that they receive no training about emergence nor any mapping, but they will receive the same instruction about diffusion in both text and simulations, and they will be given additional diffusion problems to solve instead of reading about emergence, as suggested by David Yaron. This design will allow us to unconfound the benefit of being exposed to the emergent module from the benefit of mapping. Time on task in all three conditions will be equated, and all three groups will receive the same pre-test, the same training post-test, the same [[transfer]] instruction, and the same [[transfer]] post-test.		The design consists of three groups. The Experimental group is comparable to our previous experimental group, in that the students will receive both the general emergent schema training as well as mapping of diffusion to emergence. The No Map Control group will receive the emergence schema training but without any explicit mapping (for the simulation parts of the instruction, they will receive attention prompts). The Control group is comparable to our previous control group, in that they receive no training about emergence nor any mapping, but they will receive the same instruction about diffusion in both text and simulations, and they will be given additional diffusion problems to solve instead of reading about emergence, as suggested by David Yaron. This design will allow us to unconfound the benefit of being exposed to the emergent module from the benefit of mapping. Time on task in all three conditions will be equated, and all three groups will receive the same pre-test, the same training post-test, the same [[transfer]] instruction, and the same [[transfer]] post-test.

	The pretest will consist of approximately 50-60 items, in both multiple-choice and constructed-response format addressing each of three topics: emergence, diffusion, and heat transfer. The pre-test items will be developed with inputs from the Colorado School of Mines, since they will administer a misconception exam to their students in order to identify common misconceptions about diffusion and heat transfer at the college level. The pre-test will assess all 10 attributes that distinguish emergent from direct processes (that is, the micro-level, the macro, the and the interlevel attributes, as well as the aggregating mechanism, which we cannot discuss in this short project plan). We currently conceive of these attributes as knowledge components.		The pretest will consist of approximately 50-60 items, in both multiple-choice and constructed-response format addressing each of three topics: emergence, diffusion, and heat transfer. The pre-test items will be developed with inputs from the Colorado School of Mines, since they will administer a misconception exam to their students in order to identify common misconceptions about diffusion and heat transfer at the college level. The pre-test will assess all 10 attributes that distinguish emergent from direct processes (that is, the micro-level, the macro, the and the interlevel attributes, as well as the aggregating mechanism, which we cannot discuss in this short project plan). We currently conceive of these attributes as knowledge components.

Margr: /* Independent Variables */

2008-01-16T20:52:27Z

Independent Variables

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 16 January 2008
Line 86:		Line 86:
	* General Emergent Schema Training Group		* General Emergent Schema Training Group
	** Participants will be exposed to text and simulations (micro and macro level) describing emergent processes in general and mapping the emergent schema onto the process of diffusion. Participants will be given schema relevant prompts to help them map visual information presented in diffusion simulations on to the emergent schema.		** Participants will be exposed to text and simulations (micro and macro level) describing emergent processes in general and mapping the emergent schema onto the process of diffusion. Participants will be given schema relevant prompts to help them map visual information presented in diffusion simulations on to the emergent schema.
	* Map Control Group		* No Map Control Group
	** Same as above except that participants will be given attention prompts (rather than schema relevant prompts) to help them attend to features of the simulation while interacting with the diffusion simulations. This group will not receive explicit help in mapping the diffusion simulations on to the emergent schema.		** Same as above except that participants will be given attention prompts (rather than schema relevant prompts) to help them attend to features of the simulation while interacting with the diffusion simulations. This group will not receive explicit help in mapping the diffusion simulations on to the emergent schema.
	* Control Group		* Control Group

Margr: /* Summary Table */

2008-01-16T20:51:12Z

Summary Table

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 16 January 2008
Line 11:		Line 11:
	\| '''Study Start Date''' \|\| May 2008		\| '''Study Start Date''' \|\| May 2008
	\|-		\|-
	\| '''Study End Date''' \|\| October ~~2008~~		\| '''Study End Date''' \|\| October 2009
	\|-		\|-
	\| '''LearnLab Site''' \|\|		\| '''LearnLab Site''' \|\|

Margr: /* Summary Table */

2008-01-15T20:37:52Z

Summary Table

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 15 January 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:
	=== Summary Table ===		=== Summary Table ===
	{\| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"		{\| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
	\| '''PIs''' \|\| Michelene T. H. Chi		\| '''PIs''' \|\| Michelene T. H. Chi (LRDC, University of Pittsburgh)
	\|-		\|-
	\| '''Other Contributers''' \|\| David Yaron (Department of Chemistry, CMU)		\| '''Other Contributers''' \|\| David Yaron (Department of Chemistry, CMU)

Margr: /* Independent Variables */

2008-01-15T20:33:55Z

Independent Variables

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 15 January 2008
Line 85:		Line 85:
	'''Type of instruction'''		'''Type of instruction'''
	* General Emergent Schema Training Group		* General Emergent Schema Training Group
	** Participants ~~are~~ exposed to text and simulations (micro and macro level) describing emergent processes in general and mapping the emergent schema onto the process of diffusion. Participants ~~are~~ given schema relevant prompts to help them map visual information presented in diffusion simulations on to the emergent schema.		** Participants will be exposed to text and simulations (micro and macro level) describing emergent processes in general and mapping the emergent schema onto the process of diffusion. Participants will be given schema relevant prompts to help them map visual information presented in diffusion simulations on to the emergent schema.
	* Map Control Group		* Map Control Group
	** Same as above except that participants ~~are~~ given attention prompts (rather than schema relevant prompts) to help them attend to features of the simulation while interacting with the diffusion simulations. This group ~~does~~ not receive explicit help in mapping the diffusion simulations on to the emergent schema.		** Same as above except that participants will be given attention prompts (rather than schema relevant prompts) to help them attend to features of the simulation while interacting with the diffusion simulations. This group will not receive explicit help in mapping the diffusion simulations on to the emergent schema.
	* Control Group		* Control Group
	** Participants in this group receive no explicit training in emergence nor any mapping between the simulations and the emergent schema. They will receive the same instruction about diffusion in both text and simulations but without the mapping to emergence. These participants ~~are~~ also given attention prompts (rather than schema relevant prompts) to help them attend to features of the simulation while interacting with the diffusion simulations.		** Participants in this group receive no explicit training in emergence nor any mapping between the simulations and the emergent schema. They will receive the same instruction about diffusion in both text and simulations but without the mapping to emergence. These participants will also be given attention prompts (rather than schema relevant prompts) to help them attend to features of the simulation while interacting with the diffusion simulations.

	===Dependent Variables===		===Dependent Variables===

Margr: /* Research questions */

2008-01-15T20:31:38Z

Research questions

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:31, 15 January 2008
Line 80:		Line 80:
	*1) Can we replicate the findings of our 2005 experimental study in the Chemistry LearnLab? This new study will be designed to unconfound the effect of the emergent module training from the effects of mapping prompts.		*1) Can we replicate the findings of our 2005 experimental study in the Chemistry LearnLab? This new study will be designed to unconfound the effect of the emergent module training from the effects of mapping prompts.
	*2) Does providing learners with explicit prompts designed to help them map visual information about specific processes presented in simulations to general verbal information (emergence schema) significantly support robust learning (as measured by the absence/decrease in misconceptions and an increase in correct conceptions about diffusion)?		*2) Does providing learners with explicit prompts designed to help them map visual information about specific processes presented in simulations to general verbal information (emergence schema) significantly support robust learning (as measured by the absence/decrease in misconceptions and an increase in correct conceptions about diffusion)?
	*3) Does this ability transfer to cases where learning about an emergent process does not contain such explicit mappings?		*3) Does this ability [[transfer]] to cases where learning about an emergent process does not contain such explicit mappings?

	===Independent Variables===		===Independent Variables===

Margr: /* Background & Significance */

2008-01-15T20:30:02Z

Background & Significance

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:30, 15 January 2008
Line 64:		Line 64:
	These two sets of examples illustrate general differences between direct and emergent processes. A more detailed description that explicitly specifies a set of ten distinguishing features is provided in Chi (2005). Explicit specification of these features is essential for purposes of instruction.		These two sets of examples illustrate general differences between direct and emergent processes. A more detailed description that explicitly specifies a set of ten distinguishing features is provided in Chi (2005). Explicit specification of these features is essential for purposes of instruction.

	Our prior funding allowed us to develop two equal-length sets of instructional materials for middle school science, one for an experimental group and one for a control group. Each set consisted of one general module and two concept-specific modules. The general module for the experimental group introduced the emergence schema, describing everyday examples of emergent and direct processes and identifying explicit features for recognizing and explaining each type. The general module for the control group described the nature of science, using text taken directly from Science for All Americans, published by Project 2061 (AAAS, 1989). Pre- and post assessments of this module measured long-term retention because the posttest was administered several days after learning.		Our prior funding allowed us to develop two equal-length sets of instructional materials for middle school science, one for an experimental group and one for a control group. Each set consisted of one general module and two concept-specific modules. The general module for the experimental group introduced the emergence schema, describing everyday [[examples]] of emergent and direct processes and identifying explicit features for recognizing and explaining each type. The general module for the control group described the nature of science, using text taken directly from Science for All Americans, published by Project 2061 (AAAS, 1989). Pre- and post assessments of this module measured [[long-term retention]] because the posttest was administered several days after learning.

	For both groups, the first concept-specific module was about diffusion. The diffusion modules for both the experimental and control groups included a text description and computer animations of diffusion. The text for the control group was a composite of passages taken from standard grade-appropriate textbooks. The same text was used for the experimental condition, with a small number of passages ablated and replaced by descriptions instantiating diffusion as an emergent process, so that they were about the same length.		For both groups, the first concept-specific module was about diffusion. The diffusion modules for both the experimental and control groups included a text description and computer animations of diffusion. The text for the control group was a composite of passages taken from standard grade-appropriate textbooks. The same text was used for the experimental condition, with a small number of passages ablated and replaced by descriptions instantiating diffusion as an emergent process, so that they were about the same length.

Margr: /* Background & Significance */

2008-01-15T20:23:09Z

Background & Significance

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 15 January 2008
Line 36:		Line 36:
	For years, researchers have been investigating student ideas about science concepts and how they interfere with learning. Some of these ideas, often referred to as misconceptions, are extremely robust, stable and resistant to instruction. Thousands of studies have documented specific misconceptions about a variety of science concepts and phenomena, beginning with a book by Novak (1977) and a review by Driver and Easley (1978), both published almost three decades ago. By 2004, there were over 6000 publications describing student ideas and instructional attempts to change them (Duit, 2004). Obviously, we have not yet solved the daunting problem of how to build conceptual understanding in the presence of robust misconceptions, a process sometimes referred to as radical conceptual change (Carey, 1985).		For years, researchers have been investigating student ideas about science concepts and how they interfere with learning. Some of these ideas, often referred to as misconceptions, are extremely robust, stable and resistant to instruction. Thousands of studies have documented specific misconceptions about a variety of science concepts and phenomena, beginning with a book by Novak (1977) and a review by Driver and Easley (1978), both published almost three decades ago. By 2004, there were over 6000 publications describing student ideas and instructional attempts to change them (Duit, 2004). Obviously, we have not yet solved the daunting problem of how to build conceptual understanding in the presence of robust misconceptions, a process sometimes referred to as radical conceptual change (Carey, 1985).

	Our lab has been investigating the underlying structure of a class of science process concepts that are frequently misconceived across various science domains. Based on insights from that analysis, we hypothesize that emergence is the key structure that underlies this class of process concepts, and that misconceptions arise because most students know nothing about emergence. To test our hypothesis, we developed a brief, self-contained domain-general instructional module that we refer to as emergent schema training. It focuses on the idea of emergence, which is related to notions of complex dynamic systems (Goldstone, 2006), to see if it can help students achieve greater learning, deeper understanding, and more successful [[transfer]] to other concepts. Our domain-general approach is relevant to a variety of concepts across science domains as well as to concepts in domains other than science, such as economics, political science, and history. Thus, the structure of emergence is an ideal test bed for robust learning not only in terms of [[long-term retention]], but also for [[accelerated learning]] of new concepts.		Our lab has been investigating the underlying structure of a class of science process concepts that are frequently misconceived across various science domains. Based on insights from that analysis, we hypothesize that emergence is the key structure that underlies this class of process concepts, and that misconceptions arise because most students know nothing about emergence. To test our hypothesis, we developed a brief, self-contained domain-general instructional module that we refer to as emergent schema training. It focuses on the idea of emergence, which is related to notions of complex dynamic systems (Goldstone, 2006), to see if it can help students achieve greater learning, deeper understanding, and more successful [[transfer]] to other concepts. Our domain-general approach is relevant to a variety of concepts across science domains as well as to concepts in domains other than science, such as economics, political science, and history. Thus, the structure of emergence is an ideal test bed for robust learning not only in terms of [[long-term retention]], but also for [[accelerated future learning]] of new concepts.

	The long-term objective of our emergent work is to demonstrate that schema training can help students achieve radical conceptual change and, more importantly, [[transfer]] deep understanding to a variety of important concepts. Toward that end, we developed an emergent schema-training module for middle- and high-school level students. In 2005, we tested the module with eighth- and ninth graders, obtaining promising results. (See Prior Work below for details.)		The long-term objective of our emergent work is to demonstrate that schema training can help students achieve radical conceptual change and, more importantly, [[transfer]] deep understanding to a variety of important concepts. Toward that end, we developed an emergent schema-training module for middle- and high-school level students. In 2005, we tested the module with eighth- and ninth graders, obtaining promising results. (See Prior Work below for details.)

Margr: /* Background & Significance */

2008-01-15T20:22:32Z

Background & Significance

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 15 January 2008
Line 36:		Line 36:
	For years, researchers have been investigating student ideas about science concepts and how they interfere with learning. Some of these ideas, often referred to as misconceptions, are extremely robust, stable and resistant to instruction. Thousands of studies have documented specific misconceptions about a variety of science concepts and phenomena, beginning with a book by Novak (1977) and a review by Driver and Easley (1978), both published almost three decades ago. By 2004, there were over 6000 publications describing student ideas and instructional attempts to change them (Duit, 2004). Obviously, we have not yet solved the daunting problem of how to build conceptual understanding in the presence of robust misconceptions, a process sometimes referred to as radical conceptual change (Carey, 1985).		For years, researchers have been investigating student ideas about science concepts and how they interfere with learning. Some of these ideas, often referred to as misconceptions, are extremely robust, stable and resistant to instruction. Thousands of studies have documented specific misconceptions about a variety of science concepts and phenomena, beginning with a book by Novak (1977) and a review by Driver and Easley (1978), both published almost three decades ago. By 2004, there were over 6000 publications describing student ideas and instructional attempts to change them (Duit, 2004). Obviously, we have not yet solved the daunting problem of how to build conceptual understanding in the presence of robust misconceptions, a process sometimes referred to as radical conceptual change (Carey, 1985).

	Our lab has been investigating the underlying structure of a class of science process concepts that are frequently misconceived across various science domains. Based on insights from that analysis, we hypothesize that emergence is the key structure that underlies this class of process concepts, and that misconceptions arise because most students know nothing about emergence. To test our hypothesis, we developed a brief, self-contained domain-general instructional module that we refer to as emergent schema training. It focuses on the idea of emergence, which is related to notions of complex dynamic systems (Goldstone, 2006), to see if it can help students achieve greater learning, deeper understanding, and more successful transfer to other concepts. Our domain-general approach is relevant to a variety of concepts across science domains as well as to concepts in domains other than science, such as economics, political science, and history. Thus, the structure of emergence is an ideal test bed for robust learning not only in terms of long-term retention, but also for accelerated learning of new concepts.		Our lab has been investigating the underlying structure of a class of science process concepts that are frequently misconceived across various science domains. Based on insights from that analysis, we hypothesize that emergence is the key structure that underlies this class of process concepts, and that misconceptions arise because most students know nothing about emergence. To test our hypothesis, we developed a brief, self-contained domain-general instructional module that we refer to as emergent schema training. It focuses on the idea of emergence, which is related to notions of complex dynamic systems (Goldstone, 2006), to see if it can help students achieve greater learning, deeper understanding, and more successful [[transfer]] to other concepts. Our domain-general approach is relevant to a variety of concepts across science domains as well as to concepts in domains other than science, such as economics, political science, and history. Thus, the structure of emergence is an ideal test bed for robust learning not only in terms of [[long-term retention]], but also for [[accelerated learning]] of new concepts.

	The long-term objective of our emergent work is to demonstrate that schema training can help students achieve radical conceptual change and, more importantly, transfer deep understanding to a variety of important concepts. Toward that end, we developed an emergent schema-training module for middle- and high-school level students. In 2005, we tested the module with eighth- and ninth graders, obtaining promising results. (See Prior Work below for details.)		The long-term objective of our emergent work is to demonstrate that schema training can help students achieve radical conceptual change and, more importantly, [[transfer]] deep understanding to a variety of important concepts. Toward that end, we developed an emergent schema-training module for middle- and high-school level students. In 2005, we tested the module with eighth- and ninth graders, obtaining promising results. (See Prior Work below for details.)

	The objective of the research proposed in this project plan is to replicate the 2005 study with college-level students in vivo, for reasons that are especially germane to the conception of LearnLabs. That is, we achieved only modest far transfer in our 2005 study primarily because the students did not possess the prerequisite knowledge needed for learning the transfer concept. A LearnLab context will completely avoid this problem. Our study will parallel and collaborate with an NSF-funded study being conducted with engineering students at the Colorado School of Mines, Purdue University and three other sites, by Ron Miller (a chemical engineer), Ruth Streveler (an educational psychologist), and Jim Slotta (an educational technologist). They have obtained NSF funding to test a modified version of our schema training method for helping college students develop accurate mental models of engineering processes. Our proposed project will develop materials for college students, and they will then use those materials to determine whether emergent schema training can help engineering students understand small-scale dynamic processes, such as microfluidics. A summary of the project is attached as an ancillary document. Taken together, these two studies will provide a rigorous test of our hypothesis about emergence and the value of schema training.		The objective of the research proposed in this project plan is to replicate the 2005 study with college-level students in vivo, for reasons that are especially germane to the conception of LearnLabs. That is, we achieved only modest far [[transfer]] in our 2005 study primarily because the students did not possess the prerequisite knowledge needed for learning the transfer concept. A LearnLab context will completely avoid this problem. Our study will parallel and collaborate with an NSF-funded study being conducted with engineering students at the Colorado School of Mines, Purdue University and three other sites, by Ron Miller (a chemical engineer), Ruth Streveler (an educational psychologist), and Jim Slotta (an educational technologist). They have obtained NSF funding to test a modified version of our schema training method for helping college students develop accurate mental models of engineering processes. Our proposed project will develop materials for college students, and they will then use those materials to determine whether emergent schema training can help engineering students understand small-scale dynamic processes, such as microfluidics. A summary of the project is attached as an ancillary document. Taken together, these two studies will provide a rigorous test of our hypothesis about emergence and the value of schema training.

	Prior Work		Prior Work