An analysis of prospective chemistry teachers’ cognitive structures through flow map method: The subject of oxidation and reduction

It has been exhibited in many studies that students have inadequacies in conceptually understanding the basic subjects of chemistry (Cracolice, Deming, & Ehlert, 2008; Mason, Shell, & Crawley, 1997; Nakhleh, 1993; Nakhleh & Mitchell, 1993; Pickering, 1990; Sawrey, 1990). Pendley, Bretz, and Novak (1994) list the factors underlying the problems that students encounter in understanding the concepts and principles of chemistry as follows: 1) students’ prefer to memorise rather than learn meaningfully, 2) because the subjects of chemistry mostly seem conceptually incomprehensible to students, students fail to notice the key concepts and the relations between concepts necessary for understanding the subjects of chemistry, and 3) as a result of failure of instruction to present the key concepts and the relations between those concepts, there is an apparent incomprehensibility surrounding those concepts and principles conceptually for students.

Conceptual understanding plays a significant role in acquiring new knowledge in a field and in applying the knowledge to problem-solving cases (Bascones & Novak, 1985; Lavendowski, 1981; Novak, 1977; Novak, Gowin, & Johansen, 1983). Constructing a very well organised conceptual framework, which is a requirement for conceptual understanding, requires that students prefer meaningful learning instead of rote learning. Meaningful learning occurs through students’ establishing conceptual associations between their relevant knowledge and the new knowledge presented to them (Ausubel, 1968). When meaningful learning does not occur, rote learning comes into prominence. In consequence of rote learning, students cannot associate new knowledge with prior knowledge effectively, instead they just memorise the new material, and therefore they can forget it soon and cannot transfer it (Bretz 2001; Novak & Gowin, 1984). Besides, meaningful learning is an active process, and it requires that students activate the cognitive framework so that they can combine the new knowledge effectively (Bischoff & Anderson, 2001). Thus, it is important for students to grasp the basic concepts, and the way they associate those concepts is important. Since chemistry is a complex science studying many abstract issues and concepts, it requires students to understand the subjects of chemistry, and the related concepts and ideas, i.e. to develop coherent and consistent structures (Burrows & Mooring, 2015).

Cognitive structure is a structure showing the interconceptual relations in students’ long-term memory (Shavelson, 1974). Studies conducted in relation to cognitive structure are harmonious with constructivist theory (Anderson, 1992; Bodner, 1986). Constructivist theory contends that knowledge is actively constructed by students and not simply stored in memory (Howard, 1988). Knowledge is not directly communicated, but it is actively constructed by learners (Bodner, 1986; Fosnot, 1996). Therefore, even if learners in the same learning environment are presented the same knowledge and the same learning conditions, they develop different cognitive structures and different ways of organising the knowledge (Howard, 1988). Assessing learners’ cognitive structures is an important indicator in evaluating what they know. Traditional pen-and-paper tests are usually used in assessing students’ knowledge in chemistry education. This does not inform us much about interconceptual relations in students’ mind, how they form relations, and how they organise knowledge in this way (Tsai, 2001). Evaluating the cognitive structure:

helps educators to organise materials,
enables educators to notice knowledge gaps in students’ cognitive structures,
enables educators to relate new materials to existing slots in students’ cognitive structures (Jonassen, 1987)
enables educators to notice the learning difficulties students have,
enables educators to facilitate teaching (Snow, 1989).

Educators and constructivist scientists have made efforts to present students’ cognitive structures in differing ways (Chin-Chung & Chao-Ming, 2001), and they have employed various methods, such as word associations (Gunstone, 1980; Shavelson, 1972), concept maps (Novak & Gowin, 1984), and flow maps (Anderson & Demetrius, 1993) for this.

A flow map is a method used in presenting students’ cognitive structures (Anderson & Demetrius, 1993; Tsai & Huang, 2002), and was first developed by Anderson and Demetrius, (1993). The method of a flow map has been used by different researchers to analyse individuals’ cognitive structures in diverse learning environments (Anderson, Randle, & Covotsos, 2001; Bischoff, 1999; Bischoff & Anderson, 1998; Dhindsa & Anderson, 2004; Tsai, 1998; 2000; 2001; Tsai & Huang, 2001; Oskay & Dinçol, 2001; Oskay, Temel, Özgür, & Erdem, 2012). Flow maps are formed by schematising the oral statements of students’ thoughts (Tsai, 2001). While students’ narratives obtained from interviews are mostly used in preparing flow maps, students’ written narratives may also be used (Anderson, Randle, & Covotsos, 2001). They are used to show the sequential and multiple relational frameworks of ideas expressed by students because flow maps display both the sequential organisation and cross linkages between ideas available in students’ narratives. In forming a flow map, firstly students’ ideas are listed. Then links are set up between ideas by using sequential and diagonal relational arrows. Linear arrows showing the sequential flow of students’ ideas, and recurrent arrows showing the linkages between relational statements are used in flow maps. The recurrent arrows are formed facing towards previously mentioned statements. Students’ misconceptions are also listed and noted in flow maps because misconceptions present a part of cognitive structure, and the number of those misconceptions can be regarded as an indicator of the accuracy of students’ conceptual frameworks (Tsai, 2001). Distinguishing misconceptions through flow maps and presenting them visually can be a useful tool for teachers and students of science to distinguish the fields which need improvement at the beginning of learning (Bischoff & Anderson, 1998).

When studied downward, flow maps offer information on the sequential development of ideas and on their linear connections, and when studied diagonally, they provide information on diagonal relational ideas (Anderson & Demetrius, 1993). Flow maps are used to:

provide a descriptive and quantitative presentation of students’ narratives,
analyse cognitive structure when the sequential and multiple relational aspects of students’ narratives are important,
demonstrate changes in the cognitive presentation of knowledge before and after learning,
determine the current prior knowledge before teaching as a way of explaining the interaction between current knowledge and the acquisition of new knowledge,
discuss with students what they think,
help to correct the wrong interactions between events, if there are any (Anderson & Demetrius, 1993),
enable teachers and educators to evaluate students’ cognitive structures related to different aspects through quantitative analysis,
perform content analysis of the basic scientific concepts that students remember,
perform content analysis for students’ information processing strategies,
quantitative analyses of flow maps enable teachers to evaluate the structure, extent, richness, connections and accuracy of students’ knowledge structure (Tsai, 2001).

Significance of the Study
In order for meaningful learning to occur, it is especially important for students to understand the basic concepts of a subject domain and the relations between those concepts, and thus to develop meaningful conceptual frameworks—that is to say, to develop cognitive structures. Based on this fact, this study aims to determine the cognitive structures of prospective chemistry teachers through a flow map method. A review of relevant literature shows that there are general studies related to high school students’ cognitive structures (Anderson & Demetrius, 1993; Bischoff & Anderson, 1998; 2001; Chang, Yeh, & Barufaldi, 2010; Tsai, 2001), and studies related to various subjects (human digestive system—Anderson & Demetrius, 1993; the greenhouse effect and global warming—Chang et al., 2010; Oskay et al., 2012; the carbon cycle—Selvi & Yakışan, 2005; biological reproduction—Chin-Chung & Chao-Ming, 2001; the molecular kinetic properties of air—Bischoff, 2006). Moreover, the fact that the number of studies concerning the subjects of chemistry is limited (atom model—Tsai, 2001; ethanoic acid—Zhou, Wang, & Zheng, 2015; oxidation and reduction—Bischoff, Avery, Golden, & French, 2010; hybridisation and bonds—Oskay & Dinçol, 2011; chemical bonds and the structure of the atom—Dhindsa & Anderson, 2004; covalent and ionic bonding—Temel & Özcan, 2016), and particularly that the number of studies performed in Turkey is limited (Karagöz Şahin, 2004; Oskay & Dinçol, 2011; Oskay, et al., 2012; Selvi & Yakışan, 2005; Temel & Özcan, 2016) contribute to the importance of this study.

Purpose
This study aims to analyse prospective chemistry teachers’ cognitive structures related to oxidation and reduction subject to a flow map method.