Abstract
Coll, Dahsah, Chairam, and Jansoon state in Chapter 16, that Thailand like many countries worldwide has engaged in major reforms to the science curriculum. A key focus of these reforms has been a shift toward a learner-centered science curriculum. In this chapter, authors report on a number of studies to show how a learner-centered science curriculum in Thailand places major importance on shifting the mindset of Thai students from a rather less active learning role in a strongly teacher-dominated classroom to a role in which they are active learners of chemistry.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Balfakih, N. M. A. (2003). The effectiveness of student team-achievement division (STAD) for teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 605–624.
Barbosa, R., Jofili, Z., & Watts, M. (2004). Cooperating in constructing knowledge: Case studies from chemistry and citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 935–949.
Beall, H., & Prescott, S. (1994). Concepts and calculations in chemistry teaching and learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(2), 111–112.
Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(12), 1000–1003.
BouJaoude, S., & Barakat, H. (2000). Secondary school students’ difficulties with stoichiometry. School Science Review, 81(296), 91–98.
Bunce, D. M., Gabel, D. L., & Samuel, K. B. (1991). Enhancing chemistry problem-solving achievement using problem categorization. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(6), 505–521.
Cain, L. (1986). S’ Mores-demonstration of stoichiometry relationships. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(12), 1048–1049.
Camacho, M., & Good, R. (1989). Problem solving and chemical equilibrium successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 251–272.
Carr, M. (1984). Model confusion in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 14(2), 97–103.
Çalik, M. (2005). A cross-age study of different perspectives in solution chemistry from junior to senior high school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 671–696.
Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005a). A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638–667.
Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005b). A cross-age study on the understanding of chemical solution and their components. International Education Journal, 6(1), 30–41.
Chang, R. (2003). General chemistry. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Charania, N., Kausar, F., & Cassum, S. (2001). Playing jigsaw: A cooperative learning experience. Journal of Nursing Education, 40(9), 420–421.
Chairam, S., Somsook, E., & Coll, R. K. (2009). Enhancing Thai students’ learning of chemical kinetics. Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(3), 95–115.
Chiu, M.-H. (2001). Algorithmic problem solving and conceptual understanding of chemistry by students at a local high school in Taiwan. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China, Part D, 11, 20–38.
Choi, M. M. F., & Wong, P. S. (2004). Using a datalogger to determine first first-order kinetics and calcium carbonate in eggshells. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 859–861.
Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–193.
Coll, R. K., Taylor, I., & Fisher, D. L. (2002). An application of the questionnaire on teacher interaction and college and university classroom environment inventory in a multicultural tertiary context. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 165–183.
Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 357–382.
Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Exploring tertiary students’ understanding of covalent bonding. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 241–267.
Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Learners’ mental models of metallic bonding: A cross-age study. Science Education, 87(5), 685–707.
Colosi, J. C., & Zales, C. R. (1998). Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology lab courses. BioScience, 48(2), 118–124.
Coşto, B. (2007). Comparison of students’ performance on algorithmic, conceptual, and graphical chemistry gas problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 379–386.
Dahsah, C. (2007). Teaching and learning using conceptual change to promote Grade 10 student understanding and numerical problem solving skills in stoichiometry. Unpublished PhD thesis. Thailand: Kasetsart University.
Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. K. (2007). Thai Grade 10 and 11 students’ conceptual understanding and ability to solve stoichiometry problems. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(2), 227–241.
Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Thai Grade 10 and 11 students’ understanding of stoichiometry and related concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 573–600.
Dahsah, C., & Faikhamta, C. (2008). Science education in Thailand: Curriculum reform in transition. In R. K. Coll & N. Taylor (Eds.), Science education in context: An international examination of the influence of context on science curricula development and implementation (pp. 291–300). Rotterdam: Sense.
Dahsah, C., Coll, R. K., Cowie, B., Sung-ong, S., Yutakom, N., & Sanguanruang, S. (2009). Enhancing Grade 10 Thai students’ stoichiometry understanding and ability to solve the problems via a conceptual change perspective. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 31(1), 1–43.
Dominic, S. (1996). What’s a mole for? Journal of Chemical Education, 73(6), 309–310.
Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (1996). The mole environment: Development and implementation of studyware. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 36(4), 625–628.
Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (1998). The mole environment studyware: Applying multidimensional analysis to quantitative chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 317–333.
Demeo, S. (1996). Mathematically modeling dilution. The Chemical Educator, 1(1), 1–5.
Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J., & Glažar, S. A. (2009). Assessing 16-year-old students’ understanding of aqueous solution at submicroscopic level. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 157–179.
Dunnivant, F. M., Simon, D. M., & Willson, S. (2002). The making of a solution: A simple but poorly understood concept in general chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 7(4), 207–210.
Eilam, B. (2004). Drops of water and of soap solution: Students’ constraining mental models of the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 970–993.
Eilks, I. (2005). Experiences and reflections about teaching atomic structure in a jigsaw classroom in lower secondary school chemistry lessons. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(2), 313–319.
Fleming, F. F. (1995). No small change: Simultaneously introducing cooperative learning and microscale experiments in an organic lab course. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(8), 718–729.
Furio, C., Azcona, R., & Guisasola, J. (2002). The learning and teaching of the concepts ‘amount of substance’ and ‘mole’: A review of the literature. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(3), 277–292.
Gabel, D. L., Briner, D., & Haines, D. (1992). Modelling with magnets. The Science Teacher, 59(3), 58–63.
Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teacher Association (pp. 301–326). New York: Macmillan.
Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D. (1984). Analyzing difficulties with mole-concept tasks by using familiar analog tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(8), 843–851.
Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.
Glynn, S. (1997). Drawing mental models. Science Teacher, 64(1), 30–32.
Holliday, D. C. (2000). The development of Jigsaw IV in a secondary social studies classroom. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Holliday, D. C. (2002). Jigsaw IV: Using student/teacher concerns to improve Jigsaw III. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). The student laboratory and the science curriculum. London: Routledge.
Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 195–211.
Huddle, P. A., & Pillay, A. E. (1996). An in-depth study of misconceptions in stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at a South African university. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 65–77.
Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Student experiences of carrying out a practical science investigation under direction. International Journal of Science Education, 30(9), 1201–1228.
Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2009). Assessment of learning, for learning, and as learning: New Zealand case studies. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 283–304.
Institution for Promoting Science and Technology [IPST]. (2003a). Chemistry Textbook 2 (2nd ed). Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.
Institution for Promoting Science and Technology [IPST]. (2003b). The Teacher Manual of Chemistry Textbook 2 (1st ed.). Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.
Jankun, J., Selman, S. H., Swiercz, R., & Skrzypczak-Jankun, E. (1997). Why drinking green tea could prevent cancer. Nature, 387(6633), 561.
Jansoon, N., Coll, R. K., & Somsook, E. (2009). Understanding mental models of dilution in Thai students. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(2), 147–168.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, A. W. (1990). The year-long first course in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(4), 299–303.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Learning groups. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 441–461). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(1), 75–83.
Justi, R. (2003). Teaching and learning chemical kinetics. In J. K. Gilbert, O. D. Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69–94). London, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Kabapinar, F., Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2004). The design and evaluation of a teaching-learning sequence addressing the solubility concept with Turkish secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 635–652.
Kolb, D. (1978). The mole. Journal of Chemical Education, 55(8), 728–732.
Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Students’ errors in solving numerical chemical-equilibrium problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(1), 5–17.
Krishnan, S. R., & Howe, A. C. (1994). Developing an instrument to assess conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(7), 653–655.
Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In A. L. Stevens & D. Gentner (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75–99). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.
Lazarowitz, R., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Cooperative learning in the science curriculum. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 449–469). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lazrowitz, R., & Tamir, R. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teachers Association. New York: Macmillan.
Lin, Q., Kirsch, P., & Turner, R. (1996). Numeric and conceptual understanding of general chemistry at a minority institution. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(12), 1003–1005.
Lythcott, J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 248–252.
Ministry of Education (MoE). (1996). Education reform at the Ministry of Education Thailand. Bangkok: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (MoE). (2009). Core basic education curriculum B.E. 2551. Retrieved October 9, 2009, from http://www.curriculum2551.com/Download/2551.pdf (in Thai)
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
McElroy, L. J. (1996). Teaching dilutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(8), 765–766.
Mettes, C. T. C. W., Pilot, A., Roossink, H. J., & Kramers-Pals, H. (1980). Teaching and learning problem solving in science. Journal of Chemical Education, 57(7), 882–885.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Identifying conceptual students in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52–55.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(2), 190–192.
Nakhleh, M. B., Polles, J., & Malina, E. (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. In J. Gilbert, O. D. Jong, R. Justi, D. Treagust, & J. H. v. Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69–94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Niaz, M. (1995). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student ability to solve chemistry problems: A Lakatosian interpretation. Science Education, 79(1), 19–36.
Office of the National Education Commission [ONEC]. (2003). National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Bangkok: Pimdeekarnpim.
Office of the Education Council [OEC]. (2006). Education in Thailand 2005/2006. Bangkok: Amarin.
Parkash, B., & Kumar, A. (1999). Chemical kinetics illustrated by an improvised experiment. School Science Review, 80(292), 114–117.
Pinnell, G. S. (1984). Communication in small group settings. Theory into Practice, 23(3), 246–254.
Pravalpruk, S. (1999). Learning and assessment in the science classroom in Thailand. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 75–82.
Raviolo, A. (2004). An analogic model for understanding the preparation of volumetric solutions. The Chemical Educator, 9(4), 211–215.
Robinson, W. R. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9), 978–982.
Sawrey, B. A. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 253–254.
Schmidt, H. J. (1991). A label as a hidden persuader: Chemists’ neutralization concept. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 459–471.
Schmidt, H. J. (1994). Stoichiometry problem solving in high school chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 191–200.
Schmidt, H. J., & Jigneus, C. (2003). Students’ strategies in solving algorithmic stoichiometry problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(3), 305–317.
Smith, M. E., Hinckley, C. C., & Volk, G. L. (1991). Cooperative learning in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 413–415.
Stephans, J. (1994). Targeting students’ science misconceptions: Physical science activities using conceptual change model. Riverview, FL: The Idea Factory.
Tinger, J. B., & Good, R. (1990). Effects of cooperative grouping on stoichiometric problem solving in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(7), 671–683.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.
Wang, M. R. (2000). An introductory laboratory exercise on solution preparation: A rewarding experience. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 249–250.
Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in school science. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 35–51). London: Routledge.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
Woolnough, B. E. (1991). Practical science: The role and reality of practical work in school science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A
Stoichiometry Learning Unit: 2
Subject: Chemistry | Level: Grade 10 |
---|---|
Topic: Average atomic mass | Time: 1 period (50 min) |
Learning Outcome
-
1.
Students should be able to define the meaning of an average atomic mass;
-
2.
Students should be able to do the experiment and calculate average mass of objects
-
3.
Students should be able to calculate atomic mass of an element
-
4.
Students should be able to describe how scientists determine average atomic mass using mass spectrometer.
Science Concept
The average atomic mass of an element is the average atomic mass for the naturally occurring element, expressed in atomic mass units. The scientist uses mass spectrometer to determine the isotope of element and average atomic mass.
Learning Activities
Express and Share Ideas
-
1.
Explore students idea about number of basic particles in atoms and isotope (Worksheet I)
-
2.
Demonstration using red and green balls to explore students’ prior knowledge about atomic number, mass number, and isotope. Discuss the responses in class. (Isotope demonstration)
-
3.
Predict how scientist determines the atomic mass of the element that has isotope. Discuss in group and in class
Challenge Ideas
-
4.
Do analogy experiment about average mass of beans (Worksheet II: Average Mass Experiment)
Accommodate Ideas
-
5.
Discuss the analogy experiment and link to the concept of average atomic mass
Apply Ideas
-
6.
Calculate an average atomic mass of an elements (Worksheet III)
-
7.
Search for information about mass spectrometer and how scientists use it to determine atomic mass. Present in next class.
Instructional Materials
Worksheets and Demonstration equipment
Assessments
-
1.
Students’ response; discussion, presentation both in group and in class
-
2.
Do experiment
-
3.
Group activity
-
4.
Worksheet
-
5.
Searching and Report
-
6.
Students’ Journal.
Worksheet I
Atomic number, Mass Number, and Isotope
-
1.
Complete the following table
Symbol
Number of Proton(s)
Number of Neutron(s)
Number of electron(s)
Atomic Number
Mass Number
\( {}_{1}^{1} {\text{H}} \)
\( {}_{1}^{2} {\text{H}} \)
\( {}_{1}^{3} {\text{H}} \)
\( {}_{6}^{12} {\text{C}} \)
\( {}_{6}^{13} {\text{C}} \)
\( {}_{6}^{14} {\text{C}} \)
\( {}_{7}^{14} {\text{N}} \)
\( {}_{7}^{15} {\text{N}} \)
-
2.
Are there any Isotope shown in the table from item 1? Explain
-
3.
What is atomic number?
-
4.
What is mass number?
-
5.
What is isotope?
-
6.
If an element that has isotope, how do we define the atomic mass of that element?
Worksheet II
Average Mass Experiment
Instruction: Group of three students find out the average mass of beans
Pre Questions:
-
1.
What are average weight of boys and girls in our class?
-
2.
What is average weight of the student in a class from the information in item 1?
-
3.
How to find out the average mass of seed of bean in a beaker?
-
4.
If we have three types of bean, and know average mass of each bean, how do we determine the average mass of bean?
Materials:
Three beakers, black beans, soy beans, green beans, digital balance
Procedures:
-
Weight mass of each bean in the given amount
-
Count the number of each bean in the given amount (about 40–100 seeds)
-
Calculate average mass of each seed
-
Calculate percentage of each bean compare to all beans
e.g \( {\text{percent of green bean }} = \frac{\text{number of green bean}}{\text{number of all beans}} \times 100 \)
-
Calculate average mass of one seed of bean
\( \begin{array}{ll} {\text{Average mass of beans}} \,=\, \hfill \\ \frac{{\left( {{\text{mass of green bean }} \times \, \% {\text{ of green bean}}} \right) + \left( {{\text{mass of soy bean }} \times \, \% {\text{ of soy bean}}} \right) + \left( {{\text{mass of black bean }} \times \, \% {\text{ of black bean}}} \right)}}{100} \hfill \\ \end{array} \)
Source: http://www.ndsu.edu/ndsu/goswald/chem117/labs/IsotopeLab.pdf
Worksheet III
Average Atomic Mass
-
1.
The chemistry score (100 points in total) divided into three part; 50 points for test, 25 points for experiment, and 25 points for homework. Aree got 85 % from test, 77 % from experiment, and 91 % from homework, what is Aree’s chemistry score?
-
2.
What is the average atomic mass of Silicon
Isotope
Atomic Mass
Percent in nature
Silicon-28
27.98
92.21
Silicon-29
28.98
4.70
Silicon-30
29.97
3.09
-
3.
Carbon has two isotopes which are C-12 and C-13. The atomic mass of C-12 and C-13 are 12.000 and 13.003, respectively. If the average atomic mass of carbon is 12.011 what is the ratio of each isotope?
-
4.
The results from mass spectrometer indicated that Ar composted of three isotope which are \( {}_{18}^{36} {\text{Ar}} \), \( {}_{18}^{38} {\text{Ar}} \), and \( {}_{18}^{40} {\text{Ar}} \). The amount of each isotope is 0.1, 0.3, and 99.6 %, respectively. What is the average mass of Ar?
Isotope Demonstration
Objective: Explain the meaning and determine atomic number and atomic mass of isotope of element
Material: Red balls, Green balls, round-bottom flask, periodic table
Procedure:
-
1.
Tell students that using red ball represents proton, and green balls represent neutron, and round- bottom flask is a nucleus of atom
-
2.
Ask students “what word represent number of proton?” and “how the number of proton important?”
-
3.
Put one red ball in a flask, ask students “what element that the model represents?” and “what is atomic mass, and atomic number?” (Hydrogen; 1; 1)
-
4.
Add two green balls, “what happen to this model, still be the same element? Why?,” and “what is the symbol of this?” (\( {}_{1}^{3} H \))
-
5.
Add one red ball, “what happen to this model, still be the same element? Why?,” and “what is the symbol of this?” (\( {}_{2}^{4} He \))
-
6.
Add more balls and ask the students to make sure that they understand about atomic mass, atomic number, and isotope.
Student’s Journal
-
1.
What did you learned from this class?
-
2.
Any question do you have?
-
3.
Could you apply what you learned to your daily life, how?
-
4.
What activities do you like the most?
-
5.
What activities you do not like?
-
6.
Any comment and suggestion about the teaching and learning
Appendix B
Chemical Kinetics
This experiment focuses on the kinetics of acid–base reactions. The concept of chemical kinetics of this reaction is often taught in secondary or tertiary education levels. Whilst concrete which buildings are made of is chemically different to calcium carbonate, the overall idea is similar in that acids destroy carbonates—and this experiment uses materials that are a bit easier for us to handle in the laboratory class. Acids such as hydrochloric acid (HCl) will react quickly with calcium carbonate to produce a salt, water and release gaseous carbon dioxide. Other acids such as the acids present in vinegar also react with carbonates.
The reaction is: \( {\text{CaCO}}_{3} \left( {\text{s}} \right) + 2{\text{HCl}} \left( {\text{aq}} \right) \to {\text{CaCl}}_{ 2} \left( {\text{aq}} \right) + {\text{H}}_{ 2} {\text{O}}\left( {\text{l}} \right) + {\text{CO}}_{ 2} \left( {\text{g}} \right) \)
In the reaction above, how the acid and carbonate react may depend on a number of factors which we want you to investigate. Things you can consider are: the concentration of the acid, the particle size of the carbonate, the temperature of a reaction, and any other factors you can think of. This chemical equation can be applied to determine the rate of a reaction by plotting the relationships between the production of carbon dioxide over time. The experiment is first-order in its kinetics with respect to calcium carbonate and acid. The experimental data from kinetics investigations can be analyzed using Microsoft Excel Solver.
Inquiry-Based Learning
Teachers indicate the students a POE in an inquiry-based experiment in teaching and learning chemical kinetics: acid–base reactions. The use of a POE focuses on the student's understanding of a laboratory. Students need to practice using the ideas themselves to gain the ways of thinking by requiring written responses for this experiment. Students are given to design the experiment for studying how variables affect the rate of a reaction.
Prediction-Observation-Explanation
Prediction-Observation-Explanation, POE, probes student understanding by requiring students to carry out three tasks. It is most important to ensure that students are being asked to make a POE. In the whole classes, students have to:
-
predict the outcome of some events, and justify reasons students have to support their prediction,
-
describe what students see when the reaction occurs while doing the experiment, students have to write down their observation, and
-
reconcile any conflict between what students predicted and what students observed.
Example: Predict how the surface of solid reactant, calcium carbonate, might affect the rate of a reaction, when we change the particle size from either
\( \square \) small particle sizes to larger particle sizes
or
\( \square \) large particle sizes to smaller particle sizes.
Prediction: When reacting with the same concentration of acid at the same temperature:
\( \square \) the rate of a reaction increases
\( \square \) the rate of a reaction decreases
\( \square \) the rate of a reaction does not change.
Explanation for Prediction:
Observation:
Reconciliation of Prediction and Observation:
The experimental design used in this class of inquiry-based learning seeks to enhance students processes of scientific inquiry and to enhance their understanding of chemical kinetics. Here we use POE activities in this laboratory class in combination with several other tools. First is argumentation and argumentative practice. This means each students needs to defend or ague for the rightness of his or her predictions, observations, and explanations. This type of activity is a central activity of scientists and is used within research groups, in this experiment your assigned group. Here we emphasize the knowledge of chemical kinetics by sharing individual ideas between teachers and students in the groups.
Argumentation
The rationale of argumentation in this study is the contribution of the scientific arguments to the construction of scientific knowledge. The arguments can be seen to take place as an individual activity, through thinking and writing, or as a social activity to take place within a group, a negotiated social act within a specific community. The question that needs to be asked is not only what phenomenon is, but also how it related to events, and why it is important. The classroom practice does provide the opportunity to develop student's abilities to construct arguments. It is important to ensure that all students are asked to:
-
indicate both the prediction of the outcomes and provide reasons to support the prediction.
-
explore what happened, when the reaction occurs. All students have to write down their individual observations based on some personal reasoning.
-
explain what happened, when students change variables which affect the rate of a reaction for studying chemical kinetics.
-
discuss in your group, for example, students represent individual idea for few minutes through promoting appropriate classroom activities. Students might gain confidence in a deep understanding of knowledge.
Importance of Group Work
The teaching and learning approach in this experiment places emphasis on the discussion or argumentation described above in group work for promoting the negotiation and argument in order to develop the student's conceptual understanding. Teachers here in this experiment will try to encourage students to predict, observe, and explain what they are doing in the experiment in a group setting as well as in whole-class discussion. In the whole laboratory classes, students are also given the opportunity dealing with a particular problem in a group work.
Appendix C
Study Basic Chemistry with Green Tea Beverages
Jankun et al. (1997)
Green tea contains phenolic compounds. The phenolic compounds in green tea are the four flavanol: epicatechin, epicatechin gallate, epigallocatechin, and epigallocatechin gallate. The total phenolic compounds have been determined by the Folin-Ciocalteu method. This is a colorimetric redox reaction that measures all phenolic compounds. The Folin-Ciocalteu reagent is a solution of polymeric complex ions formed from phosphomolybdic acid (H3PMo12O40) and phosphotungstic acid (H3PW12O40).
In an alkaline solution, which is adjusted by sodium carbonate solution to pH 10, phenol was dissociated to phenolate anion. Folin-Ciocalteu is reduced to blue complex during phenolic compound oxidation. The absorption is measured at 760 nm.
The procedure is used to measure the relative phenolic compound contents in green tea, using gallic acid as a standard. The results are typically expressed as gallic acid equivalents (GAE).
Purpose
For this experiment, the objectives are:
-
1.
To study the dilution method and the concentration of solutions;
-
2.
To study the calibration curve; and
-
3.
To determine the total phenolic compound in green tea beverages by UV–Vis spectrometer.
Materials and Reagents
For this experiment, the materials and reagents are:
-
1.
25-, 50-, and 100-ml volumetric flask;
-
2.
5-ml cylinder;
-
3.
ml pipette;
-
4.
100-ml beaker;
-
5.
Spectronic 20;
-
6.
Water bath;
-
7.
Balance;
-
8.
Gallic acid;
-
9.
Sodium carbonate; and
-
10.
Folin-ciocalteu reagent.
Experiment procedures:
Part A: Prepare standard solution and create a calibration curve
-
1.
Make up 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 ppm solutions of gallic acid from the 1000 ppm gallic acid stock solution.
-
2.
Add 1.0 mL aliquot of each gallic acid standard solution into beakers No.1, No.2, No.3, No.4, and No.5; add the following in order to each beaker:
-
5 mL of 10 %v/v FC reagent and wait 3 min
-
2 mL of 15 %w/v Na2CO3
-
-
3.
Incubate the mixed solution for 15 min at 50 °C and transfer to 25-mL volumetric flask. Adjust the volume to exactly 25 mL with distilled water.
-
4.
Record the UV absorbance at 760 nm by Spectronic 20.
-
5.
Create a calibration curve with 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 ppm gallic acid.
Part B-1: Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage sample
-
1.
Filter the green tea beverage through paper and dilute to 10 % with water.
-
2.
Add 1.0 mL aliquot of sample solution into beakers No.1, No.2, and No.3 and add the following in order to each beaker:
-
5 mL of 10 % v/v FC reagent and wait 3 min
-
2 mL of 15 % w/v Na2CO3
-
-
3.
Incubate the mixed solution for 15 min at 50 °C and transfer to 25-, 50-, and 100-mL volumetric flasks, and adjust volume to exactly 25, 50, and 100 ml with distilled water.
-
4.
Record the UV absorbance at 760 nm by Spectronic 20.
Part B-2: Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage sample
-
1.
Filter the green tea beverage through paper and dilute to 10 % with water.
-
2.
Add 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 ml aliquot of sample solution into beakers No.4, No.5, and No. 6 respectively, and add the following in order to each beaker:
-
5 ml of 10 % v/v FC reagent and wait 3 min
-
2 ml of 15 % w/v Na2CO3
-
-
3.
Incubate the mixed solution for 15 min at 50 °C and transfer to 25 mL volumetric flask and adjust volume to exactly 25 mL with distilled water.
-
4.
Record the UV absorbance at 760 nm by Spectronic 20.
Calculation
Laboratory report
Study Basic Chemistry with green tea beverages
—————————————————————
Part A: Prepare standard solution and create a calibration curve
-
1.
Make up a 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 ppm gallic acid solution from 1000 ppm gallic acid, and record the information in the table below.
0 ppm
50 ppm
100 ppm
150 ppm
200 ppm
Volume of 1000 ppm gallic acid (mL)
Volume of solutions (mL)
-
2.
Create and draw a calibration curve, using the information in the table below (Fig. A.1).
Notes
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Part B - 1: Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage
10 % sample (ml) | 10 % FC (ml) | 15 % Na2CO3 (ml) | Vtot (ml) | A | C ppm of GAE | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beaker No.1 | 1.00 | 5 | 2 | 25 | ||
Beaker No.2 | 1.00 | 5 | 2 | 50 | ||
Beaker No.3 | 1.00 | 5 | 2 | 100 |
Notes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Part B - 2: Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage
10 % sample (ml) | 10 % FC (ml) | 15 % Na2CO3 (ml) | Vtot (ml) | A | C ppm of GAE | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beaker No.4 | 1.00 | 5 | 2 | 25 | ||
Beaker No.5 | 2.00 | 5 | 2 | 25 | ||
Beaker No.6 | 3.00 | 5 | 2 | 25 |
Notes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Calculation
Part B - 1 Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage sample
1.1 Beaker No.1
(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?
(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?
(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?
(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?
1.2 Beaker No.2
(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?
(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?
(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
(5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?
(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?
1.3 Beaker No.3
(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?
(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?
(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
(5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?
(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?
Part B - 2 Determine total phenolic compound in green tea beverage sample
2.1 Beaker No.4
(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?
(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?
(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?
(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?
2.2 Beaker No.5
(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?
(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?
(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
(5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?
(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?
2.3 Beaker No.6
(1) What is the equivalent concentration of total phenolic compound in the blue solution measured by Spectronic 20?
(2) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 25 ml of the blue solution?
(3) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 1 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
(4) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 100 ml of 10 % green tea beverage?
(5) What is the equivalent amount of total phenolic compound in 10 ml of green tea beverage?
(6) What is the equivalent concentration of total compound in 500 ml of green tea beverage sample?
Conclusions
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Coll, R.K., Dahsah, C., Chairam, S., Jansoon, N. (2014). Fostering Active Chemistry Learning in Thailand: Toward a Learner-Centered Student Experiences. In: Devetak, I., Glažar, S. (eds) Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4365-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4366-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)