students)
Should be safe!
We have made somesolutionsof…..
(Students answer according to real situation)
1 5
Be able to tell the acid-base nature of commonly used aqueous solutions.
Facts finding (provoking motivation)
Problem finding
◎ Guess what would happen inside the breaker?
Wow! How strange the egg became!
(Students answer according to real situation)
5
◎ How come the egg and eggshell turned out that way inside the vinegar?
* Is it the vinegar?
◎ Vinegar, which is not a strong acid, could turn egg into this within a short period of time. The erosion of strong acid and base is even stronger and more dangerous. Is there a way to turn them into mild acid or base or neutralize them?
Is there a way to do this?
(Allow students some time to think)
5 Be able to think from observing.
◎ When the doctor said that there is too much acid in your stomach, what would the property of the medicine given be to decrease the amount of acid in your stomach?
Dissolve the medicine into water, and test the acid-base of it. (base)
Could it be that the base-medicine reduced the amount of stomach acid.
We could use a base to weaken a strong acid, or even neutralize it. Or we could use acid to weaken a strong base….
(Let students talk freely.)
1 0
Be able to reason out the theory of weakening acid or base.
◎ Let’stestand seeif your idea works. Starting the experiment on mixing the acid and base solutions.
Use the materials to make a
Students follow the guidance of the teacher.
Categorizing some of the solutions. Mixing the solutions according to the
2 5
Be able to perform a team experiment.
Idea finding
Solution finding
indicator. Guide the students in performing the
“mixing”experiment.
indicator. Observing the changes in color of the indicators, recording it and discussing it.
Each group present the records from their experiment:
when strong acid meets base, there would be some transforming. Until the indicator changes color, we know that it has become base.
When the indicator returns to the original color, the solution is neutral.
( Let the students report what they see)
* Teacher unifies and sorts out the informations.
Students present what they seen:
there are some dangerous strong acids, or base, solutions in our life, use with extreme caution.
We could mix some acid with base, and alter the nature of them.
1 5
Be able to tell the situation of the mixtures.
Solution acceptance
Table3. Lesson Plan for“oxidation-reduction”creativeproblem solving (Activity 2: the mystery of fire)
Setting Stages Children Activity Equip ment
T ime
◎ Children! What are the requirements for combustion?
◎Teacher performs the result of combustion. Ex.
twig, alcohol.
Students report:
- Oxygen
- flammable materials - Heating procedure
Little wooden piece, alcohol, a piece of fabric, copper wire, spoon, aluminum foil basin,
5
◎ Have you ever burned anything? Have any of your family members? What is the appearances of flammable materials?
- Roast pork, burning Hell money, burning the straw.
- Solid,liquid….
1 0
◎ What are the differences before, during, and after combustion?
- Turning dark, turning hard
◎ What is the smell? - Stinky smell? smells good?
Teacher issues experiment equipment:
◎ Children! These are the experiment materials for combustion.
Issuing experiment equipment according to the
3 Data finding
Mess finding
Problem finding
equipment list.
◎ Do you know what a measuring cylinder is?
What would happeen to them after the burning?
- wood - cotton balls - should be darker
◎ Children! Some are flammable, some are fire-resistant. You would need to burn them and record the properties and details on the record sheets.
You could use the equipment on the teacher’s table. What could you do to speed up the experiment?
Thinking time:
what is the trait for No. 1? -- what is the trait for No. 2?
- first,do ….. then,do….
Activit y records
1 2
◎ Children! Now start! Please record every single detail, and draw
- fill out the record.
- Categorize according to traits.
(Group activity sheet 2 )
4 0
◎ Each group writes down the experimental methods and conclusions on the blackboard, and presents the results.
Students operate the experiment step by step following the designed procedures, and record the results on the activity sheet.
3 0 Idea finding
Solution acceptances Solution finding
◎ Children! Which of the results do you think are reasonalbe? Which one do you not agree with?
Which one is the best? And why?
◎ Each group delivers the results from their discussion on the stage.
Students observe the experimental design and results of other groups.
Each group discusses and records their results onto a projection slide. The discussion is presented on the stage.
◎ Cleaning up. 1
0 3. Designing the performance assessment
This performance assessment was administrated based on the previous concept of “acid-base” and “oxidation-reduction” teaching module concepts. It tests the differences between scientific creativity and problem solving ability after teaching the student either module or the regular teaching process. Here is the assessment plan:
i. Subject: grade 5 and 6 students in elementary school.
ii. Topic: (1) Acid-base: test unknown aqueous solution with natural
indicator to determine the acid-base nature of the solution. (2) Oxidation-reduction: observe the combustion phenomenon, describe and categorize the characteristics.
iii. Time: 20 minutes with each topic.
iv. Assessment method: Part I –directly observe the students and evaluate their operation performance. Part II –evaluate according to the records made during the operation process.
v. Equipment: pre-made acid-base indicator, unknown aqueous solution, flammable materials, and other tools.
vi. Assessment content:
(1). Acid-base activity: (See the experimental procedure assessment sheet in Attachment I.)
Children! There is purple cabbage juice, all the experiment tools, and three cups of known aqueous solutions on the table. They are marked as: ammonia water (base), juice (acid), and water (neutral). Please use the purple cabbage juice as the indicator and determine what color the cabbage juice turns to in acid, base, and neutral solutions. Display the results on the board.
There are three unknown solutions on the table. Please use the results above to finish the second list.
What should we do with the leftovers if we want to use them to water the plants without harming them after the experiment? Please finish this task!
A written test follows, the questions are: (See the experimental record sheet in Attachment II.)
What do you think the character of the indicator should be? Why?
Have you noticed any special phenomenon during the procedure?
In your opinion, which part of the experiment could be applied to daily life?
Do you have any suggestions for improving this activity?
(2). Oxidation-reduction activity: (See the experimental produre assessment sheet in Attachment III.)
Children! Please burn the materials provided, and use the equipment to observe the traits of the materials before, during and after combustion. (activity sheet 1). Please write as detailed a description as possible. Then, categorize these materials in your own way. (activity sheet 2).
vii. Assessment standard:
(1). Acid-base activity: There are three assessment tools to evaluate the fluency (T), propriety (P), and uniqueness (U).
fluency (T): grading according to the answers the students wrote. One complete answer is one point.
Propriety (P): grading according to the correct answers written by the students. Unrelated answers are eliminated. One correct answer is one point.
Uniqueness (U): selecting from the correct answers, grading according to unique answers given by the students, with a unique-ratio of U/P.
The scores in the assessment sheet include uniqueness and completion. The uniquenessassessmentisgraded with “uniqueness”and “distinction”,onepointeach.
The completion assessment is graded using the features completed in the experiment.
Two points for completed, one for partially completed, and none for incomplete.
(2). Oxidation-reduction activity:
(i) Experimental procedure. (See the experimental procedure assessment sheet in Attachment III.)
Check the student’s performance during the procedure. The number of points gained is indicated on the back of the question. The divergent thinking portion is graded using only uniqueness. Convergent thinking is counted separately in each sub-part of the assessment. This will be the score for that part. This part of the score would be graded using the procedure record. The total problem solving score is the total for divergent and convergent thinking. Any special performance or behavior by the students would alter this score. Besides that, special performance and some other behaviors not listed in the sheet, the questions raised by students during the experiment, or the replies from observers could be marked and recorded after the 4th section. The methods was used to grade uniqueness. The examiner could grade this using the ratio to all other methods, two points for less than 1/5, one point for 1/5 ~ 1/3, none for over 1/3. The conclusion for the second question would be graded according to the uniqueness for the conclusion, the same as question 1.
Observers collected all of the records after the experiment and then graded them.
(ii) Experiment record. (The experiment record sheet seen in attachment IV.) - Divergent thinking. Fluency is counted based on the display of all traits during the procedure. One point is issued for each trait. Each flexibility category was valued at one point. Uniqueness is counted using special features that go unnoticed during the procedure. One point is issued for each unique item.
- Convergent thinking is counted separately based on reasonable reactions and reasonable categorizing structure, given one point each. The remainder is checked with the actual registration: whether or not the documentation is correct, clear, and logical? Is it understandable? Is there a graphic illustration? The activity record total is the total for the first divergent thinking portion plus the second convergent thinking portion.
The total for the scientific problem solving assessment is the actual performance and performance record score. The scientific creativity score is the divergent operation and record total.
IV. Methods
This study investigated how students perform in terms of their creativity and problem solving abilities. The assessment tools used in this study were developed by the researchers. Based on the teaching model for chemistry in the elementary school natural science class, this experiment conducted post-test with the control and experimental groups to compare the outcomes. With description, calculation and observation the researchers analyzed and evaluated the data looking forward to finding a teaching model ideal for cultivating science creativity via problem solving and effective assessment tools for evaluating student problem solving and science creativity abilities.
1. Study sample
The subjects were grade 5 and 6 students from the Kaohsiung and Pingtung areas.
Confined by the labor, material, and school administration resources, it was not possibleto run alargescaleresearch study. In the“oxidation-reduction” section the control group was 20 6th graders from an elementary school in Kaohsiung County.
The experimental group was 19 (4 ineffective samples were eliminated) 6th graders from anotherclassatthe sameschool. In the“acid-base”section thecontrol group was 28 5th graders from a school in Pingtung county. The experimental group was 26 students from another class from the same grade at same school. The teachers from these classes participated in this experiment with full understanding of the notion, purpose, and experimental steps.
2. Research Tools
A performance evaluation was used as the assessment tool (seen in attachment 1
~ 4). The tools, developed by the researchers, assessed the scientific creativity and problem solving abilities using “acid-base”and “oxidation-reduction”. A scientific creativity and problem solving ability written test designed by Hung (2001) was used for criteria-validity test.
3. Research Steps
i. Design teaching plans for teachers and primary work sheets for students based on 2 topics:“acid-base”and “oxidation-reduction”.
ii. Based on the“performanceassessment”,design an assessmenttoolfor scientific creativity and problem solving ability for elementary school students.
iii. The research group discussed and revised the teaching activity plans and learning activity plans to correspond with the performance assessment testing tools.
iv. Scientific creativity and problem solving ability assessment tools were designed for the “acid-base” and “oxidation-reduction” instruction units.
Teaching modules for these topics (each unit is expected to finish within 6 sessions) were proposed.
v. Develop pre-test and evaluation methods for student scientific creativity via problem solving.
vi. Discuss and remodel the assessment tools. Evaluate and confirm the content validity of the research tools.
vii. Request experimental groups from grade 5 (26 students) and grade 6 (23 students) for experiment teaching.
viii. Determine the scientific creativity and problem solving ability of the
students during teaching activity. Perform post-tests using the assessment tool.
ix. Choose control groups from grade 5 (28 students) and grade 6 (20 students), to conduct post-test with the assessment tool.
x. Process and analyze the data.
xi. Propose complete teaching modules for the “acid-base” and
“oxidation-reduction”instruction. Prescribeateaching pattern forcreativeproblem solving. Prescribe a performance assessment tool for student scientific creativity and problem solving abilities.
xii. Present conclusions and suggestions according to the research findings.
V. Results
The “acid-base” and “oxidation-reduction” modules were used experimental teaching. Performance assessment and written tests were conducted with the experimental and control groups. The results were test results (quantity) and experimental teaching observations(quality).
1. Test result analysis
i. The reliability and validity of the assessment tool used for the
“oxidation-reduction”instruction results.
Two researchers separately evaluated the collected student divergent and convergent thinking data. The students’ procedural performance was evaluated using the“experimentalprocedureassessmentsheet”.
In the “procedure assessment” portion the correlation between the evaluators was .97 (p<.01). This means that the two evaluators agree with the procedural assessment grade. The correlation between the “divergent thinking” assessors was .96 (p<.01). This significant correlation shows that the divergent think procedural assessment grading was concordant. The convergent thinking correlation was .98 (p<.01), which is significant. The reason the convergent thinking assessment was slightly higher than that for divergent thinking was that the convergent thinking answers were clearer. However, the “uniqueness” assessment varied. The researchers regard this as one of the characteristics of uniqueness. The assessor recognition of uniqueness is not objective. The correlation for experimental procedure was .87 (p<.01). This is because the procedure performances were recorded differently. Some assessors recorded more, some less. Hence, thisw correlation was slightly lower than that for the divergent and convergent thinking.
The criteria for the scientific problem solving procedural assessment was .61 (p<.01). The scientific creativity procedural assessment was .53 (p<.05). Both scores were significantly correlated at the above-medium degree. The convergent thinking and problem solving ability correlation was .56 (p<.05). The creative scientific problem solving ability correlation was. .47(p<.05)). The convergent thinking and problem solving ability correlation was .65 (p<.01). The scientific creativity correlation was .57(p<.01). From these results, both thinking methods were correlated with above-medium degree problem solving ability. This validates the operational assessment, that is, the problem solving ability and scientific creativity assessment share a common trait with the written test assessment. However, the procedural and written test assessment figures are different. The written test could not determine the procedural skill of the students. The transformation and concept applications, degree of mastery, adaptation and action programming could not be
effectively determined. That is why these two assessments did not exhibit a higher correlation.
ii. Thereliability and validity ofthe“acid-base”assessmenttool.
The internal concordance (Cronbach α) of the scientific creativity assessment tools was .86 for the experimental group and .91 for the control group. The internal concordance for the problem solving ability assessment tools was .77 for the experimental group and .62 for the control group, which is satisfactory.
The grader correlation for the scientific creativity procedural assessment tools was significantly high. The correlation coefficient, r, for the experimental group graders was 094 (p<.01), and .96 (p<.01) for the control group. The correlation for the graders using the problem solving ability procedural assessment tools was significantly high. The correlation coefficient, r, for the experimental group graders was 093 (p<.01) and .93 (p<.01) for the control group. In the total procedural assessment score for the experimental group graders was 095 (p<.01), and .96 (p<.01) for the control group. Both scores were also highly significantly correlated. The above data shows that the graders evaluated each item in the assessment tools concordantly.
Further more, the criteria-validity for the procedural assessment and written scientific problem solving ability test was .78 (p<.01) and .62 (p<.01) for scientific creativity. Both scores were significantly correlated at the above-medium degree.
Therefore, the assessment tools for this experiment were validated.
iii. Theconclusion fortheexperimental“acid-base”teaching
(1) To understand if there were differences in learning between the experimental control groups, the researchers ran a t-test with the natural science and academic achievement sample scores. See table 4.
Table 4. The academic Achievement scores Experimental group
（n＝20）
Control group
（n＝19）
group
Items Mean Standard
Deviation Mean
Standa
83.53 11.21 85.21 9.46 .5 1
.6 2
As show in Table 4, no significant differences occurred (p<.05). Generally speaking, a similarity in general learning performance occurred in both groups. The learning performance in natural science for both groups was tested using the t-score.
The results are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Independent- analysis score for natural science from both groups Experimental group
（n＝20）
Control group
（n＝19）
Group
Items Mean SD Mean SD
t p
natural
science 84.79 10.09 87.89 5.05 1.
22
. 23 After analyzing the data, we found no significant differences in the science learning performance for both groups (p<.05). Therefore, both groups showed similar science learning performance.
(2). After the experimental teaching activity, the procedural performance for both
the experimental and control groups was assessed. The data comparison is presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Experimental and control group independent analysis Experimental group
（n＝20）
Control group
（n＝19）
Group
Items Mean SD Mean SD
t p
operation 51.95 19.69 27.70 12.69 -4.60
. 000
** p＜0.01
From the above descriptive analysis, the experimental group has a higher mean than the control group. When the independent variable is used, t-test in Table 7, we found that the differences in mean score reached the significant level (p<.05).
Conversely, the experimental group performed better on the after theme-teaching activity than the control group without theme-teaching activity. The experimental group also performed significantly better in creativity related divergent thinking than the control group (p<.05).
Table 7. Divergent thinking independent analysis Experimental
group
（n＝20）
Control group
（n＝19）
Group Items
Mean SD Mea
n SD
(3). The gender differences in performance
There was not much difference in mean gender performance. Further analysis is shown in Table 8. There was no significant differences in the procedural performance and divergent thinking in both groups.
Table 8. Independent performance analysis from both genders Boy
（n＝8）
Girl
（n＝11）
Group
Items Mean SD Mean SD
t p
divergent
thinking 31.13 9.69 30.00 14.40 .19 .85 operation 53.75 14.96 50.64 23.16 .33 .74 iv. “Acid-base”experimentalteaching activity results.
(1). Comparison of scientific creativity between the experimental and control groups
This research evaluated both groups using the scientific creativity assessment tool on the procedural performance after the teaching activity. The mean
This research evaluated both groups using the scientific creativity assessment tool on the procedural performance after the teaching activity. The mean