Trends on the influence of learning styles on science or chemistry education

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Trends on the influence of learning styles on science or chemistry education

Recent research in education indicate that one of the key challenges to keeping quality in science education is students’ diversity such as learning styles, personality, culture, etc. To mention some, learning style is one of the important topical instructional variables that influences the choice of pedagogy such as instructional material development, classroom interactions and students’ success in science (Moseley, et al., 2005; Pritchard, 2009). It might be for this reason that academics have given due attention to educational importance of learning styles (Lujan & Stephen, 2006; Margaret & Roberta, 2007; Timothy & Kimberly, 2010; Watson, 2007).

The influences of learner’s diversity on differentiated instruction

Students are diverse in different dimensions, such as learning styles (characteristic ways of taking in and processing information), approaches to learning (surface, deep, and strategic), and intellectual development levels (attitudes about the nature of knowledge and how it should be acquired and evaluated) (Felder & Brent, 2005; Feldman, 2003), and intelligences ( individuals abilities and potentials that lead to academic successes) (Hoerr, 2000). These learners’ diversities in the classroom have received attention of scholars in the field of education and are becoming a very interesting instructional variable to enhance learning and the quality of science education. Educators in different fields are becoming increasingly aware of the critical importance of understanding how individuals learn different subjects, and any attempts to integrate learning styles into education programs are made from an informed position (Cassidy, 2004, p. 420).

The influences of nature of chemistry on instruction

Different science disciplines (i.e. chemistry, biology, physics, etc) have different history, philosophy and nature of complexity (Allhoff, 2010; Gabbay, Thagard, & Woods, 2007). This disciplinary difference can also influence instructional design (McNeil, 1996), because the nature and logical structure of each discipline is unique and it leads to a particular way of representation and modeling (Ballone, 2001; Cullingford, 2004). By the same token, the unique nature and logical structure of chemistry may lead to a particular way of representation and modeling in chemistry education. Therefore, instructional materials should be discipline specific.

Learning styles and its influence on instructional materials

Although different scholars possess different conceptualizations of learning styles, the common understanding is that every student possesses the capacity to learn but they do not have the same ways of learning (Ballone, 2001; Cullingford, 2004). For instance, in 1989 Dunn, Dunn and Price (cited in Milgram, Dunn, & Price, 1993) define learning style in terms of individual’s reaction preference with 23 elements of instructional environment. According to Dunn, Dunn and Price, therefore students have different preferences to interact with the 21 instructional elements which they categorized in to five different strands of stimuli (Table 2.1). Table.2.1. Individuals preferred ways of reaction to instructional environment (Dunn and Griggs 2002).

Philosophy of Chemistry

According to Justi and Gilbert (2002) “The philosophy of chemistry addresses the scope of the phenomena that fall within the remit of chemistry, with the ontology of the entities of which those phenomena are thought to consist, and with matters of epistemology, the grounds of belief on which such knowledge rests” (p.213). Although, there are debates for philosophical independence of chemistry and on the reductionism of chemistry to physics, the philosophical debates are becoming a new pedagogical resource of chemistry teaching (Erduran, 2009; Lombardi & Labarca, 2007). Trends of works on the philosophy of chemistry also show that epistemologically or theoretically, chemistry cannot be reduced to physics (Lombardi & Labarca, 2007; Scerri & McIntyre, 1994). This in turn implies the remit of chemistry and its unique concepts, models, laws, and theories uniquely shape pedagogy of chemistry.

The philosophy of chemistry in shaping the current chemistry education

The philosophy and nature of chemistry highly influences the 21st chemistry education. This is because of the fact that the object of study, theories and language of chemistry education as defined by ontological, epistemological and methodological views of chemistry should shape chemistry education. Thus, philosophy of chemistry has an important influence on the teaching of chemistry and chemistry education in general (Scerri, 2001). There are influential chemistry education metaphors which have a philosophical origin. For instance, the Mahaffy’s tetrahedral metaphor of chemistry education (Mahaffy, 2004, 2006), the Johnstone Chemistry Triangle (Johnstone, 2000; Sirhan, 2007; Talanquer, 2010 ) and Jensen logical structure of chemistry (Jensen, 1998) are some of the major influential models of chemistry education which have philosophical foundations or by the major extent influenced by the philosophy and nature of chemistry.

Contents :

• Chapter
  • Introduction
  • 1.1 Background of the study
  • 1.2 Trends on the influence of learning styles on science or chemistry education
  • 1.3 Theoretical context of the study
  • 1.4 Statement of Purpose and Research Question
  • 1.4.1 The Purpose
  • 1.4.2 The research question
  • 1.5 Significance of the study
• Chapter
  • Theoretical framework
  • 2.1 Introduction
  • 2.2 The nature of chemistry and its influence on instructional materials
  • 2.3. Learning styles and its influence on instructional materials
• Chapter
  • Literature review
  • 3.1. Introduction
  • 3.2 Philosophy of Chemistry
  • 3.2.1 The philosophy of chemistry in shaping the current chemistry education
  • 3. 2. 2 Chemistry instructional materials and its implications for learning chemistry
  • 3.3 Conceptualizations of learning styles
  • 3.3.1 The Kolb’s model and implications for science education
  • 3.3.2 Jung’s personality type theory
  • 3.3.3 Felder-Silverman learning style model and its relation for other learning style models
• Chapter
  • Research Methodology
  • 4.1. Research Paradigm and Design
  • 4.1.1 Paradigm
  • 4.1.2 Research design
  • 4.1.3 Instructional context of the study area and Population
  • 4.2 Research methods
  • 4.2.1 Sample design and procedure
  • 4.2.2 Data collection Instruments
  • 4.3 Procedures of the study
  • 4.4 Data analysis techniques
• Chapter
  • Result of quantitative phase of the study
  • 5.1 The distribution of students across Felder-Silverman’s learning style dimensions
  • 5.2 Students’ academic performance on some fundamental concepts in chemistry versus Felder-Silverman learning styles
  • 5.3 Extreme academic performance by some science students with the same learning style combinations
  • 5.4 Correlations between dependent and predictor variables and among each other
  • 5.5 Predicting academic performance on some fundamental concepts in chemistry from Felder-Silverman learning styles: Multiple regression analysis
  • 5.6 Comparing students’ academic performance on some fundamental chemical concepts against Felder-Silverman learning styles
  • 5.7 Summary
  • 5.8 Results of the qualitative phase of the study
• Chapter 6 Summary, conclusions, limitations and recommendations
  • 6.1. Summary
  • 6.2. Conclusion
  • 6.3 Limitation of the study
  • 6.4 Recommendations
  • Bibliography
  • Appendices

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
Exploring Students’ Academic Performance in some Fundamental Concepts in Chemistry through Learning styles and Instructional Materials at Two Preparatory Schools in Ethiopia