This study investigates the impact of a technology-supported desalination design project on underrepresented high school chemistry students' understanding of submicro representations and their attitudes towards chemistry and technology. Results indicate significant improvements in students' understanding of desalination and heat energy transfer concepts and highlight the general preference for hands-on projects, though mixed feelings about technology were noted. The findings suggest that effective scaffolding and engaging project designs are essential in science education to enhance students' learning experiences.

1. Improving Underrepresented High School Chemistry
Students’ Submicrorepresentations through a
Technology-Supported Desalinator Design Project
Dr. Dermot F. Donnelly
ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn
AERA 2017, San Antonio, TX

2. Project Context – Drought
ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn 2

3. Project Concepts – Heat Transfer,
Desalination, and Concentration
3ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

4. PHeT Simulation Within WISE
Navigation
Map
Students
Collect
Evidence
wise.berkeley.edu
https://phet.colorado.edu/
4ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

5. Background Literature
Student difficulties with submicrorepresentations
(SMRs) – limited empirical studies
(Adadan & Savasci, 2012; Devetak, Vogrinc, & Glažar, 2009; McDonagh, 2014)
Visualizations are helpful, but require scaffolding
(Linn & Eylon, 2011; McElhaney et al., 2015)
Students generally like projects
(Kanter, 2010; Krajcik and Blumenfeld, 2006)
Students have mixed attitudes about technology
(Ng, 2012; O’Connell & Dyment, 2016)
5ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

6. Research Questions
RQ1. What is the impact of technology-supported
projects on students’ SMRs of desalination and
concentration?
RQ2. How does a desalination design project
enhance students’ explanations related to heat
energy transfer and desalination?
RQ3. What are students’ attitudes towards projects
in Chemistry and the use of technology to support
Chemistry projects?
6ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

7. NGSS Alignment of
Desalination Project
Cross-cutting
-Energy &
Matter
-Scale,
proportion
and quantity
-Systems and
system model
Practices
-Constructing
explanations
and designing
solutions
-Planning and
carrying out
investigations
Core Ideas
-PS1 – Matter &
Its Interactions
-PS3 – Energy
-ETS1 –
Engineering
design
7ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

8. Method
• Social Constructivism/Situationalist Perspective
(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005)
• Mixed Method Study
-10 Pre/Post items (RQ1 and RQ2)
-Short attitudinal questionnaire (RQ3)
-Classroom observations (RQ1-RQ3)
• 4 10th Grade Chemistry classes of 1 female
teacher. Teacher was first time WISE user.
2 week project.
8ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

9. Student Background
• n = 85 students (out of 138 students) - 15.7 years old
• Free/Reduced Lunch – 100%
• First time using the WISE platform
9ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn
68
17
Gender
Female (80%) Male (20%)
44
122
14
13
Background
Hispanic (53%) Causasian (12%)
African-American (2%) Asian (17%)
Two or More (16%)

10. Knowledge Integration Framework
(Linn & Eylon, 2011)
Predict Interact
CompareExplain
KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION
1. ELICIT IDEAS 2. ADD IDEAS
3. DISTINGUISH
IDEAS
4. REFLECT ON
IDEAS
YES
NO
MAYBE
I think X because...
Moreover...
However...
10ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

11. Pre-Post Items (SMRs)
(Adadan & Savasci, 2012; Devetak, Vogrinc, & Glažar, 2009; McDonagh, 2014).
• Heating Saltwater, and Salt (s) and Salt (aq)
(KI Rubric)
• Concentration 1 and Concentration 2 (Binary)
11ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

12. Example Representation Rubric
Score Response Type Nature of Representation
0 No
Response/Irrelev
ant
-Idk/Does an unrelated drawing
1 Incorrect
Representation
-Shows the loss of salt particles in the
‘after heating’ diagram
-Shows separation of salt and water in
the ‘before heating’ diagram
-Shows the same amount of water
particles in both diagrams
2 1 Representation -At least 1 of the representations noted
3 2
Representations
-At least 2 of the representations noted
4 3 -All three representations noted
12ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

13. Overall Findings – Student Learning
23.8
28.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Overall Score
Combined
Score
(10 items – out
of a score of 40)
Pre
Post
n = 85, M = 4.6, SD = 3.68, p = 0.001, t = 11.5, d = 1.00
13ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

14. Findings for SMRs (RQ1)
4.6
5.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Desalination SMRs
SMR Score
(2 items for a
total score of 8)
Pre
Post
n = 85, M = 1.1, SD = 1.22, p = 0.001, t = 8.1, d = 0.83
14ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

15. 0.69
0.96
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Concentration SMRs
SMR Score
(2 items for a
total score of 2)
Pre
Post
Findings for SMRs (RQ1)
n = 85, M = .27, SD = .84, p = 0.004, t = 2.98, d = 0.25
15ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

16. Findings for Science Explanations (RQ2)
5.87
6.8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Heat Energy Transfer
KI Score
(2 items for a
total of 10)
Pre
Post
n = 85, M = .93, SD = 1.18, p = 0.001, t = 7.24, d = 0.85
16ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

17. 12.64
14.95
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Desalination Explanations
KI Score
(4 items for a
total score of
20)
Pre
Post
Findings for Science Explanations (RQ2)
n = 85, M = 2.31, SD = 2.44, p = 0.001, t = 8.77, d =
0.88 17ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

18. Findings – Project Learning Attitudes (RQ3)
“I like being able to have a hands-on experience of what we
are learning in class. I feel I learn and remember the
information better this way.” [251591, F]
“Projects makes things easier to learn since we're testing
things ourselves and it makes chemistry more interesting.”
[251670, F]
“I don't really like doing projects because it's very stressing
so I rather take a test.” [251687, M]
Project Learning Attitudes (n = 80) Percentage
Like (n = 50) 63%
Neither like or dislike (n=29) 36%
Dislike (n = 1) 1%
18ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

19. Findings – Technology Attitudes (RQ3)
“I like the online simulations that we do and videos we
watch because they help us understand what we're learning
a lot more and in more detail at our own pace.” [251670, F]
“I find technology can be unreliable with very important
things although I recognize it's value.” [251694, F]
“I feel like it could make things easier at times, but also
make things a bit more complicated at other times.”
[251583, F]
Technology Attitudes (n = 80) Percentage
Like (n = 34) 42.5%
Neither like or dislike (n=34) 42.5%
Dislike (n = 12) 15%
19ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

20. Conclusions
• Value of technology-supported projects to
support student learning
• The majority of students enjoy projects in
Chemistry, but indicate nuances in the use of
technology to support projects
• Simulations need careful scaffolding to
support understanding of concentration
20ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

21. Implications for Science Education
• Greater need for relevant and engaging
projects in high school chemistry
• Importance of scaffolding in projects such as
-the use of timelines,
-collaborative sharing by students, and
-technology embedded assessment tools
involving simulations
21ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

22. Acknowledgements
• Students and teachers who participated
• College of Science and Mathematics (CSM),
Fresno State
• Technology Enhanced Learning of Science
(TELS), UC Berkeley (Prof. Marcia Linn)
• PHeT, University of Colorado Boulder
22ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

23. Go raibh maith agaibh!
Questions?
Slides including references available:
http://www.slideshare.net/mynameis
dermot
23ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

24. References
• Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. (2012). An analysis of 16–17-year-old
students’ understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a
two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science
Education, 34(4), 513–544.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.636084
• 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.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9077-2
• Kanter, D. E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content:
Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful
understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525–551.
doi:10.1002/sce.20381
• Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K.
Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
24ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

25. References
• Linn, M., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction:
Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration.
New York: Routledge.
• Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing
Knowledge Integration in Science: Construct, Measures, and
Evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33–55.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10627190801968224
• McBride, E.A., Vitale, J.M, Applebaum, L, Linn, M.C. (2016) Use of
Interactive Computer Models to Promote Integration of Science
Concepts Through the Engineering Design Process. In Proceedings
of the 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
• McDonagh, M. (2014). An Evaluation of Formative Assessment
Probes in a Solution Chemistry Teaching Sequence. Unpublished
Thesis, University of York.
25ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

26. References
• McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2015).
Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science
curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.984506
• Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy?
Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078.
• O’Connell, T. S., & Dyment, J. E. (2016). “I”m just not that
comfortable with technology’: student perceptions of and
preferences for Web 2.0 technologies in reflective journals. Journal
of Further and Higher Education, 40(3), 392–411.
http://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.984594
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On Becoming a Pragmatic
Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and
Qualitative Research Methodologies. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447
26ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn

27. Image Credits
• California Drought GIF. Retrieved April 18th from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-
gang/wp/2017/01/12/the-drought-is-over-in-northern-
california-after-up-to-20-inches-of-rain-and-12-feet-of-
snow/?utm_term=.0786396b10fa
• Lake Drought GIF. Retrieved April 18th from:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/04/look-at-the-
profound-difference-between-californias-drought-and-
california-today/
• Serious Drought Help Save Water Image. Retrieved and
Modified April 18th from:
http://www.epictimes.com/04/08/2015/california-
replaces-amber-alerts-with-water-alerts/
27ddonnelly@csufresno.edu; Twitter: @dfdonn