Modeling meaningful learning in chemistry using structural equation modeling

被引:34
|
作者
Brandriet, Alexandra R. [1 ]
Ward, Rose Marie [2 ]
Bretz, Stacey Lowery [1 ]
机构
[1] Miami Univ, Dept Chem & Biochem, Oxford, OH 45056 USA
[2] Miami Univ, Dept Kinesiol & Hlth, Oxford, OH 45056 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
COVARIANCE STRUCTURE-ANALYSIS; GENERAL-CHEMISTRY; SUPPRESSOR VARIABLES; SELF-CONCEPT; STUDENTS; ACHIEVEMENT; ATTITUDE; INSTRUMENT; MISCONCEPTIONS; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1039/c3rp00043e
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Ausubel and Novak's construct of meaningful learning stipulates that substantive connections between new knowledge and what is already known requires the integration of thinking, feeling, and performance (Novak J. D., (2010), Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations, New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.). This study explores the integration of these three domains using a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework. A tripartite model was developed to examine meaningful learning through the correlational relationships among thinking, feeling, and performance using student responses regarding Intellectual Accessibility and Emotional Satisfaction on the Attitudes toward the Subject of Chemistry Inventory version 2 (ASCI V2) and performance on the American Chemical Society exam. We compared the primary model to seven alternatives in which correlations were systematically removed in order to represent a lack of interconnectedness among the three domains. The tripartite model had the strongest statistical fit, thereby providing statistical evidence for the construct of meaningful learning. Methodological issues associated with SEM techniques, including problems related to non-normal multivariate distributions (an assumption of traditional SEM techniques), and causal relationships are considered. Additional findings include evidence for weak configural invariance in the pre/post implementation of the ASCI(V2), mainly due to the poor structure of the pretest data. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for teaching and learning.
引用
收藏
页码:421 / 430
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Software trustworthiness evaluation using structural equation modeling
    Deng R.
    Chen Y.
    Wu H.
    Tao H.
    [J]. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 2019, 15 (10) : 2628 - 2635
  • [32] Assessing Employee Satisfaction Using Structural Equation Modeling
    Duserick, Frank
    Huang, Wilfred
    [J]. NINTH WUHAN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON E-BUSINESS, VOLS I-III, 2010, : 1347 - 1352
  • [33] Using path diagrams as a structural equation modeling tool
    Spirtes, P
    Richardson, T
    Meek, C
    Scheines, R
    Glymour, C
    [J]. SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH, 1998, 27 (02) : 182 - 225
  • [34] Mixture modeling to incorporate meaningful constraints into learning
    Tchoumatchenko, I
    Ganascia, JG
    [J]. MAXIMUM ENTROPY AND BAYESIAN METHODS, 1996, 79 : 85 - 92
  • [35] Modeling the Social Factors Affecting Students' Satisfaction with Online Learning: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach
    Alenezi, Abdulhameed Rakan
    [J]. EDUCATION RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 2022
  • [36] STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PERSPECTIVE
    KELLOWAY, EK
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, 1995, 16 (03) : 215 - 224
  • [37] Basics of structural equation modeling
    Hamagami, F
    [J]. CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOLOGY, 1999, 44 (02): : 165 - 169
  • [38] Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling
    Wong, Raymond Sin-Kwok
    [J]. ACTA SOCIOLOGICA, 2014, 57 (04) : 374 - 375
  • [39] Regularized Structural Equation Modeling
    Jacobucci, Ross
    Grimm, Kevin J.
    McArdle, John J.
    [J]. STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL, 2016, 23 (04) : 555 - 566
  • [40] Regularized Structural Equation Modeling
    Jacobucci, Ross
    McArdle, John J.
    [J]. MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, 2015, 50 (06) : 736 - 736