Research Question(s): What happens to conclusion writing in labs after drawings/diagrams of atoms or molecules are integrated into lab reports? How is student confidence in conclusion writing ability and understanding of lab concepts affected by the use of molecular drawings?
Research Activities:
This study was conducted at an urban, California high school in a tenth-grade Chemistry class, comprised of 30 students, most of whom were female (77% ), representing an extremely diverse racial background. All students were fluent English speakers. The intervention was designed to explore the effects of the use of molecular-level drawings during labs on conclusion writing in lab reports and took place over the course of four in-class laboratory experiments. These labs took place over several months and were part of the typical Chemistry curriculum sequence. After completing an initial lab on density in which students received no instruction on conclusion writing or drawing, students were introduced to conclusion writing with an emphasis on rubric-based grading and completed a second lab on valence electrons. Students were then taught to create and label molecular-level drawings through direct instruction and the use of a drawing rubric. After this instruction, students completed two additional labs, bonding and stoichiometry, including both the molecular-level drawings and rubric-based conclusions. Behavior tallies tracked student references to drawings while writing conclusions in class. These tallies showed a difference of 1.2 references between the mean number of in-class references per student and the mean number of drawing references in lab conclusions per student. Attitude surveys tracking students’ confidence in their conclusion-writing abilities and in their understanding of the concepts presented during the lab, showed that students were over-confident in their conclusion writing abilities (on average, students over-estimated their score by 21.9%). Analysis of student conclusions revealed a strong correlation between scores on drawings and scores on conclusions across achievement groups in labs three and four (r2 = 0.77 and 0.78, respectively). Large differences in conclusion scores were found between high, medium, and low-achieving students. High-achieving students steadily increased from a mean percent score of 17% at the beginning of the intervention to 56% at the end of the intervention. Medium-achieving students increased by roughly the same amount (38%) over the course of the intervention, while low-achieving students increased by only 7%. Both medium and low achievers struggled on the first lab involving molecular-level drawings with a mean percent score of 9%. Medium-achieving students then rebounded on the second lab involving molecular-level drawings (mean percent score of 49%) while low-achieving students’ scores remained stagnant (mean percent score of 16%) Findings suggest that the molecular-level drawings at the core of the intervention facilitated learning? for high- and medium-achieving students, but not low achievers.

Full Article: 

EJLTS Bohman.pdf