职前化学教师在有机化学任务中的机理推理特征:眼动追踪研究

IF 2.2 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jianqiang Ye, Yubin Zheng, Min Zhan, Yiling Zhou, Long Li, Dimei Chen
{"title":"职前化学教师在有机化学任务中的机理推理特征:眼动追踪研究","authors":"Jianqiang Ye, Yubin Zheng, Min Zhan, Yiling Zhou, Long Li, Dimei Chen","doi":"10.1007/s11165-024-10185-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Organic chemistry is challenging for novices as it involves a large quantity of organic reactions. Effective learning requires not only profound theoretical knowledge but also the ability to reason about causal mechanisms. This study investigated pre-service chemistry teachers' mechanistic reasoning and the implicit cognitive process. Participants (<i>N</i> = 33) were asked to complete three tasks, which required them to explain chemical phenomena or analyze chemical reactions. This work analyzed the components involved in participants' explanations based on the discourse analysis framework and evaluated the mechanistic reasoning by identifying the causal relationship between different components. An eye-tracking method was employed to recognize the mental activity underlying participants' performance. Four parameters, percentage of dwell time, percentage of fixation count, heat maps, and average pupil size, were used to conduct quantitative analyses on the data collected from the eye-tracker. Each parameter on predefined areas of interest was compared to identify the information that participants paid more attention to and bore more cognitive load while reasoning. The results revealed that pre-service chemistry teachers demonstrate four different types of reasoning in organic chemistry tasks: descriptive, relational, simple causal, and mechanistic reasoning. Pre-service chemistry teachers were more concerned with key information and symbolic representations. It was symbolic representations that increased cognitive load.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characteristics of Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers' Mechanistic Reasoning In Organic Chemistry Tasks: An Eye-Tracking Study\",\"authors\":\"Jianqiang Ye, Yubin Zheng, Min Zhan, Yiling Zhou, Long Li, Dimei Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11165-024-10185-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Organic chemistry is challenging for novices as it involves a large quantity of organic reactions. Effective learning requires not only profound theoretical knowledge but also the ability to reason about causal mechanisms. This study investigated pre-service chemistry teachers' mechanistic reasoning and the implicit cognitive process. Participants (<i>N</i> = 33) were asked to complete three tasks, which required them to explain chemical phenomena or analyze chemical reactions. This work analyzed the components involved in participants' explanations based on the discourse analysis framework and evaluated the mechanistic reasoning by identifying the causal relationship between different components. An eye-tracking method was employed to recognize the mental activity underlying participants' performance. Four parameters, percentage of dwell time, percentage of fixation count, heat maps, and average pupil size, were used to conduct quantitative analyses on the data collected from the eye-tracker. Each parameter on predefined areas of interest was compared to identify the information that participants paid more attention to and bore more cognitive load while reasoning. The results revealed that pre-service chemistry teachers demonstrate four different types of reasoning in organic chemistry tasks: descriptive, relational, simple causal, and mechanistic reasoning. Pre-service chemistry teachers were more concerned with key information and symbolic representations. It was symbolic representations that increased cognitive load.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10185-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10185-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有机化学涉及大量的有机反应,对新手来说具有挑战性。有效的学习不仅需要深厚的理论知识,还需要对因果机制进行推理的能力。本研究调查了职前化学教师的机理推理和内隐认知过程。参与者(N = 33)被要求完成三项任务,要求他们解释化学现象或分析化学反应。本研究以话语分析框架为基础,分析了参与者的解释所涉及的成分,并通过确定不同成分之间的因果关系来评估力学推理。研究采用了眼动跟踪法来识别参与者表现背后的心理活动。我们使用了四个参数,即停留时间百分比、固定次数百分比、热图和平均瞳孔大小,对从眼动仪收集到的数据进行定量分析。通过比较预先设定的兴趣区域的各项参数,确定参与者在推理时更关注和承担更多认知负荷的信息。结果显示,职前化学教师在有机化学任务中表现出四种不同的推理类型:描述性推理、关系性推理、简单因果性推理和机械性推理。职前化学教师更关注关键信息和符号表征。符号表征增加了认知负荷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Characteristics of Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers' Mechanistic Reasoning In Organic Chemistry Tasks: An Eye-Tracking Study

Characteristics of Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers' Mechanistic Reasoning In Organic Chemistry Tasks: An Eye-Tracking Study

Organic chemistry is challenging for novices as it involves a large quantity of organic reactions. Effective learning requires not only profound theoretical knowledge but also the ability to reason about causal mechanisms. This study investigated pre-service chemistry teachers' mechanistic reasoning and the implicit cognitive process. Participants (N = 33) were asked to complete three tasks, which required them to explain chemical phenomena or analyze chemical reactions. This work analyzed the components involved in participants' explanations based on the discourse analysis framework and evaluated the mechanistic reasoning by identifying the causal relationship between different components. An eye-tracking method was employed to recognize the mental activity underlying participants' performance. Four parameters, percentage of dwell time, percentage of fixation count, heat maps, and average pupil size, were used to conduct quantitative analyses on the data collected from the eye-tracker. Each parameter on predefined areas of interest was compared to identify the information that participants paid more attention to and bore more cognitive load while reasoning. The results revealed that pre-service chemistry teachers demonstrate four different types of reasoning in organic chemistry tasks: descriptive, relational, simple causal, and mechanistic reasoning. Pre-service chemistry teachers were more concerned with key information and symbolic representations. It was symbolic representations that increased cognitive load.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Science Education
Research in Science Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: 2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021 2020 Impact Factor: 5.439 Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus 2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership. RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal. You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research: Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know. RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted. The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers. Empircal contributions are: Theoretically or conceptually grounded; Relevant to science education theory and practice; Highlight limitations of the study; and Identify possible future research opportunities. From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks. Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is: No longer than 6000 words, including references. Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability; Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education; Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE. While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信