Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Limitations of Teaching and Learning Redox: A Systematic Review

2020

https://doi.org/10.33225/PEC/20.78.698

Abstract

Redox reactions are considered one of the most difficult chemistry subjects to teach and learn. However, this is an important content that permeates several topics and includes many everyday life-related phenomena. To understand the teaching and learning difficulties of the ‘redox reactions’ topic, a systematic literature review was conducted. Initially, 318 articles were mapped, between the years 2000 to 2019, related to the teaching of redox reactions. The inventoried articles were analyzed to identify, in their results, the aforementioned difficulties. Only 54 presented difficulties related to teaching and learning redox reactions. To analyze these articles, the year of publication, the conceptual/procedural difficulties resulting from the study, the researched participants, and the strategies used throughout the data collection were adopted as categories. As a result, the main participants of the investigations were students. It was observed that the research studies favored bac...

References (84)

  1. ISSN 1822-7864 (Print) ISSN 2538-7111 (Online) https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.698 ISSN 1822-7864 (Print) ISSN 2538-7111 (Online) https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.698 ISSN 1822-7864 (Print) ISSN 2538-7111 (Online) https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.698 ISSN 1822-7864 (Print) ISSN 2538-7111 (Online) https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.698
  2. References Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2007). Effect of cooperative learning strategies on students' understanding of concepts in electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 349-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9046-7
  3. Adu-Gyamfi, K., Ampiah, J. G., & AgyeI, D. D. (2018). Teachers' problems of teaching of oxidation- reduction reactions in high schools. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(5), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1471731
  4. Ahtee, M., Asunta, T., & Palm, H. (2002). Student teachers' problems in teaching electrolysis with a key demonstration. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(3), 317-326. https://doi.org/10.1039/B0RP90031A
  5. Al-Balushi, S., Ambusaidi, A., Al-Shuaili, A., & Taylor, N. (2012). Omani twelfth grade students' most common misconceptions in chemistry. Science Education International, 23(3), 221-240. http://www.icaseonline.net/sei/september2012/p3.pdf
  6. Alamdardoo, G. H., Moradi, S., & Dehshiri, G. R. (2013). The relationship between students' conception of learning and their academic achievement. Psychology, 4(1), 44-49. https://doi.org/10.20849/aes.v4i1.590
  7. Arnbjerg, J., Khataee, A., Breitenbach, T., Thøgersen, J., Christiansen, S., Gavlshøj Mortensen, H., Bilde, M., Frøhlich Hougaard, R., & Bentien, A. (2019). Battery concepts in physical chemistry: Making your own organic-inorganic battery. Journal Chemistry Education, 96(7), 1465-1471. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00090
  8. Aydin, S, Aydemir, N., Boz, Y., Cetin-Dindar, A., & Bektas, O. (2009). The contribution of constructivist instruction accompanied by concept mapping in enhancing pre-service chemistry teachers' conceptual understanding of chemistry in the laboratory course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 518-534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9167-1
  9. Aydin, S., & Boz, Y. (2013). The nature of integration among PCK components: A case study of two experienced chemistry teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 615-624. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00095H
  10. Barke, H. D., Hazari, A., & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Misconceptions in Chemistry. Springer.
  11. Brandriet, A. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2014). Measuring meta-ignorance through the lens of confidence: Examining students' redox misconceptions about oxidation numbers, charge, and electron transfer. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 729- 746. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00129J
  12. Çalık, M. & Sözbilir, M. (2014). Parameters of content analysis. Education and Science, 39(174), 33-38. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3412
  13. Childs, P. E., & Sheehan, M. (2009). What's difficult about chemistry? An Irish perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 204-218. https://doi.org/10.1039/B914499B
  14. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  15. De Jong, O., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The teaching and learning of electrochemistry. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards research- based practice (pp. 317-337). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  16. Cole, M. H., Rosenthal, D. P., & Sanger, M. J. (2019). Two studies comparing students' explanations of an oxidation-reduction reaction after viewing a single computer animation: The effect of varying the complexity of visual images and depicting water molecules. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20, 738-759. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00065h
  17. De Jong, O., Acampo, J., & Verdonk, A. (1995). Problems in teaching the topic of redox reactions: Actions and conceptions of chemistry teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(10), 1097-1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660321008 ISSN 1822-7864 (Print) ISSN 2538-7111 (Online) https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.698
  18. Eybe, H., & Schmidt, H-J. (2001). Quality criteria and exemplary papers in chemistry education research. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690118920
  19. Freire, L. I. F., & Fernandez, C. (2014). Professores novatos de química e o desenvolvimento do PCK de oxidorredução: influências da formação inicial [Novice chemistry teachers and the development of PCK of oxidation-reduction: Influence of initial training]. Educación química, 25(3), 312-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(14)70547-6
  20. Gan, H. S., Tee, N. Y. K., Bin Mamtaz, M. R., Xiao, K., Cheong, B. H. P., Liew, O. W., Ng, T. W. (2018). Augmented reality experimentation on oxygen gas generation from hydrogen peroxide and bleach reaction. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 46(245), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21117
  21. Gallardo, K. (2020). Competency-based assessment and the use of performance-based evaluation rubrics in higher education: Challenges towards the next decade. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 78(1), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.61
  22. Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992a). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and oxidation reduction equations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290204
  23. Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992b). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(10), 1079-1099. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660291006
  24. Geiger, W. E. (2018). Complementary Use of electrochemistry and synthetic redox chemistry in the oxidation of decamethylferrocene: An integrated advanced laboratory experiment. Journal of Chemical Education, 95, 1648-1653. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00021
  25. Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd edition, pp. 1-18). Sage.
  26. Günter, T., & Alpat, S. K. (2017). The effects of problem-based learning (PBL) on the academic achievement of students studying 'Electrochemistry'." Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 78-98. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00176a
  27. Haigh, M., France, B., & Gounder, R. (2012). Compounding confusion? When illustrative practical work falls short of its purpose-a case study. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 967-984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9226-5
  28. Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P. (2009). Beyond explanations: What else do students need to understand science? Science Education, 93(6), 1026-1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20343
  29. Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P. (2013). Supporting students' progression in science: Continuity between the particular, the contingent, and the general. Science Education, 97(1), 113-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21042
  30. Hansen, S. J. R., Hu, B., Riedlova, D., Kelly, R. M., Akaygun, S., & Villalta-Cerdas, A. 2019. Critical consumption of chemistry visuals: Eye tracking structured variation and visual feedback of redox and precipitation reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20, 837-850. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00015a
  31. Hunter, V., Hawkins, I., & Phelps, A. J., (2019). Comparing the influence of visualization type in an electrochemistry laboratory on the student discourse: Who do they talk to and what do they say? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20, 851-861. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00064J
  32. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry -logical or psychological? Chemical Education Research and Practice, 1 (1), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1039/A9RP90001B
  33. Karamustafaoğlu, S., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2015). Understanding electrochemistry concepts using the predict-observe explain strategy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 923-936. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1364a
  34. Karsli, F., & Çalik, M. (2012). Can freshman science student teachers' alternative conceptions of 'electrochemical cells' be fully diminished? Asian Journal of Chemistry, 24(2), 485-491.
  35. Kelly, R. M., Akaygun, S., Hansen, S. J. R., & Villalta-Cerdas, A. (2017). The effect that comparing molecular animations of varying accuracy has on students' submicroscopic explanations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 582-600. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00240D
  36. Koenig, E., Jacobs, A., & Lisensky, G. (2017). Properties of semiconductors: Synthesis of oriented ZnO for photoelectrochemistry and photoremediation. Journal Chemistry Education, 94(6), 738-742. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00887 ISSN 1822-7864 (Print) ISSN 2538-7111 (Online) https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.698
  37. Lee, M. H., Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1999-2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802314876
  38. Lee, S. J. (2007). Exploring students' understanding concerning batteries -Theories and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 497-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601073350
  39. Llanos, J., Perez, A., & de Lucas-Consuegra, A. (2019). Enhancing the teaching of corrosion to chemical- engineering students through laboratory experiments. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(5), 1029-1032. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00803
  40. Loh, A. S. L., & Subramaniam, R. (2018). Mapping the knowledge structure exhibited by a cohort of students based on their understanding of how a galvanic cell produces energy. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 55, 777-809. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21439
  41. Lu, S. S., Bi, H. L., & Liu, X. F. (2019). A phenomenographic study of 10th grade students' understanding of electrolytes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 204-212. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00125A
  42. Mendonça, R. J., Campos, A. F., & Jófili, Z. M. S. (2004). O conceito de oxidação-redução nos livros didáticos de química orgânica do ensino médio [The oxidation-reduction concept in high school organic chemistry textbooks]. Química Nova na Escola, 20, 45-48. http://qnesc.sbq.org.br/online/ qnesc20/v20a08.pdf
  43. Messersmith, J. S. (2014). Cyclic voltammetry simulations with digisim software: An upper level undergraduate experiment. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 1498-1500. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300633n
  44. Morris III, J. (2020). Social support among male undergraduates: A systematic review. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 78(2), 235-248. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.235
  45. Nakano, M., Ogasawara, H., Wada, T., & Koga, N. (2016). Reactivity of household oxygen bleaches: A stepwise laboratory exercise in high school chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 93, 1415-1421. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00742
  46. Nakiboglu, C., Karakoc, O., & De Jong, O. (2010). Examining pre-service chemistry teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and influences of teacher course and practice school. Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 76-79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274067003
  47. Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. In Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K. (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
  48. Niaz, M. (2002). Facilitating conceptual change in students' understanding of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 425-439. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110074044
  49. Niaz, M., & Chacón, E. (2003). A conceptual change teaching strategy to facilitate high school students' understanding of electrochemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(2), 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023983626388
  50. Noll, R. J., & Hughes, J. M. (2018). Heat evolution and electrical work of batteries as a function of discharge rate: Spontaneous and reversible processes and maximum work. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(5), 852-857. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00653
  51. Nyachwaya, J. M., Mohamed, A.-R., Roehrig, G. H., Wood, N. B., Kern, A. L., & Schneider, J. L. (2011). The development of an open-ended drawing tool: An alternative diagnostic tool for assessing students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90017J
  52. Osman, K., & Lee, T. T. (2014). Impact of interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agents on students' understanding and motivation in the learning of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 395-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9407-y Österlund, L. L., Berg, A., & Ekborg, M. (2010). Redox models in chemistry textbooks for the upper secondary school: Friend or foe? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(3), 182-192. https://doi.org/10.1039/C005467B
  53. Österlund, L. L., & Ekborg, M. (2009). Students' understanding of redox reactions in three situations. Nordine, 5(2), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.345 ISSN 1822-7864 (Print) ISSN 2538-7111 (Online) https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.698
  54. Own, Z. (2006). The application of an adaptive web-based learning environment on oxidation- reduction reactions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 4, 73-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9033-z
  55. Ozdilek, Z. (2015). Teaching the properties of chromium's oxidation states with a case study method. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(39), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00176A
  56. Özkaya, A, R., Üce, M, Sarıçayır, H., & Sahin, M. (2006). Effectiveness of a conceptual change-oriented teaching strategy to improve students' understanding of galvanic cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(11), 1719-1723. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1719
  57. Özkaya, A. R. (2002). Conceptual difficulties experienced by prospective teachers in electrochemistry: Half-cell potential, cell potential, and chemical and electrochemical equilibrium in galvanic cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 735-738. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p735
  58. Potgieter, M., Harding, A., & Engelbrecht, J. (2008). Transfer of algebraic and graphical thinking between mathematics and chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 197-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20208
  59. Potgieter, M., & Davidowitz, B. (2011). Preparedness for tertiary chemistry: Multiple applications of the chemistry competence test for diagnostic and prediction purposes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90024B
  60. Rahayu, S., Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Kita, M., & Ibnu, S. (2011). Assessment of electrochemical concepts: A comparative study involving senior high-school students in Indonesia and Japan. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29(2), 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2010.536949
  61. Rollnick, M., & Mavhunga, E. (2014). PCK of teaching electrochemistry in chemistry teachers: A case in Johannesburg, Gauteng Province, South Africa. Educación química, 25(3), 354-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(14)70551-8
  62. Rosenthal, D. P., & Sanger, M. J. (2012). Student misinterpretations and misconceptions based on their explanations of two computer animations of varying complexity depicting the same oxidation-reduction reaction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 471-483. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP20048A
  63. Rosenthal, D. P., & Sanger, M. J. (2013). How does viewing one computer animation affect students' interpretations of another animation depicting the same oxidation-reduction reaction? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(3), 286-296. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00006K
  64. Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997a). Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 377-398. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199704)34:4<377::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-O Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997b). Students' misconceptions in electrochemistry regarding current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(7), 819-823. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed074p819
  65. Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1999). An analysis of college chemistry textbooks as sources of misconceptions and errors in electrochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(6), 853-860. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p853
  66. Sanjuan, M. E. C., Dos Santos, C. V., Maia, J. d. O., Da Silva, A. F. A., & Wartha, E. J. (2009). Maresia: Uma proposta para o ensino de eletroquímica [Maresia: A proposal for teaching electrochemistry].
  67. Química Nova na Escola, 31(3), 190-197. http://qnesc.sbq.org.br/online/qnesc31_3/07- RSA-2008.pdf
  68. Schmidt, H.-J., Marohn, A., & Harrison, A. G. (2007). Factors that prevent learning in electrochemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 258-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20118
  69. Schmidt, H.-J., & Volke, D. (2003). Shift of meaning and students' alternative concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1409-1424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690220000382 40
  70. Schultz, E. (2008). Dynamic reaction figures: An integrative vehicle for understanding chemical reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(3), 386-392. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed085p386
  71. Sesen, B. A., & Tarhan, L. (2013). Inquiry-based laboratory activities in electrochemistry: High school students' achievements and attitudes. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 413-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9275-9 ISSN 1822-7864 (Print) ISSN 2538-7111 (Online) https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.698
  72. Silverstein, T. P. (2011). Oxidation and reduction: Too many definitions? Journal of Chemical Education, 88 (3), 279-281. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100777q
  73. Soudani, M., Sivade, A., Cros, D., & Mèdimagh, M. S. (2000). Transferring knowledge from the classroom to the real world: Redox concepts. School Science Review, 82(298), 65-92.
  74. Supasorn, S. (2015). Grade 12 students' conceptual understanding and mental models of galvanic cells before and after learning by using small-scale experiments in conjunction with a model kit. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 393-407. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00247D
  75. Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., & Chia, L. S. (2004). Major sources of difficulty in students' understanding of basic inorganic qualitative analysis. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(5), 725-732. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p725
  76. Tarhan, L., & Acar, B. (2007). Problem-based learning in an eleventh-grade chemistry class: "Factors affecting cell potential". Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(3), 351-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140701535299
  77. Tarkin, A., & Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. (2017). Implementation of case-based instruction on electrochemistry at the 11th grade level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 659- 681. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00062F
  78. Teo, T. W., Goh, M. T., & Yeo, L. W. (2014). Chemistry education research trends: 2004-2013. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15 (4), 470-487. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00104D
  79. Valanides, N., Nicolaido, A., & Eilks, I. (2003). Twelfth grade students' understanding of oxidation and combustion: Using action research to improve teachers' practical knowledge and teaching practice. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 159-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514032000127211
  80. Vila, F., & Sanz, A. (2012). Bridging the gap: Reintroducing photosynthesis. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(2), 148-155. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20574
  81. Vojíř, K. and M. Rusek (2019). Science education textbook research trends: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1496-1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613584
  82. Yang, E.-M., Greenbowe, T. J., & Andre, T. (2004). The effective use of an interactive software program to reduce students' misconceptions about batteries. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(4), 587- 595. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p587
  83. Yang, E.-U., Andre, T., Greenbowe, T. J., & Tibell, L. (2003). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/ animation on learning electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 329- 349. https://10.1080/09500690210145738b
  84. Yarden, H., & Yarden, A. (2010). Learning using dynamic and static visualizations: Students' comprehension, prior knowledge and conceptual status of a biotechnological method. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 375-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9126-0