HOW MUCH INFORMATION FROM THE TEXTBOOK CAN GRADE 11 CHEMISTRY STUDENTS READ AND PROCESS ON THEIR OWN?

An Action Research Report

Elizabeth Irwin, 1997

Published here with the author's written permission 

---

• The issue I chose to examine was how much information a grade 11 advanced chemistry class could read and process on their own. The way I thought I could test this was to find small sub-topics within a lesson, and give the class varying degrees of instruction or examples to see how far they could get themselves by reading information in their textbooks and solving problems.
• I tried the "experiment" three times, starting first by giving no introduction and merely giving the relevant pages to read, and assigning some problems.
• The second time, I gave a brief introduction and then a reading, followed by problems.
• The third time, I tried giving a brief example, an introduction, and then the corresponding reading and problems.

The reason for choosing this type of action research was that I noticed the students rarely read their textbook, and they often asked us to specifically tell them answers to questions that were assigned for them to "think about." In other words, they seemed to want all the information in the course presented to them, and didn’t appear to want to read anything or search for any answers themselves. I wanted to find out if this was indeed the case, or if I was misinterpreting their actions. The logical next step, which I unfortunately didn’t have enough time to really explore in this class, was ‘what to do about it?’

To keep the variables down and to prevent panic, I tried to keep the situations relatively consistent by choosing topics that they already knew something about, such as a refinement of a major topic. For example, I used limiting reagents in the stoichiometry unit, as they knew how to do much of the problem already, and just had a new twist or step to learn.

I discovered, to my chagrin, that the students were not very capable at synthesizing new information from the text. In fact, not one of them got the new problems with no teacher explanation at all. In the first attempt at this trial, every student in the class asked for help. Even if they were on the right track, they would ask for confirmation of the answers and steps they were producing. Many did not know where to start at all, and confessed complete confusion. I asked why they were so confused, and discovered that many had not even bothered to read the assigned pages first, thinking they were not going to be useful!! This revealed to me a large lack of confidence in the textbook, or in textbooks in general. I also discovered signs of low self-confidence, and dependence on confirmation from "an authority," in this case, the teacher. The three groups of students in the class who tended to work collaboratively as groups fared slightly better than the rest, but they still asked for teacher confirmation.

The second test was slightly better, and I didn’t have to go and teach 32 mini-lessons around the class. A few students, notably a group of boys who sat in the middle of the class, figured out the problems without help, but everyone else requested verbal help. Nevertheless, I felt it was still an ineffective way to teach this particular class. The ESL students, in particular, were having a hard time, although the majority of them at least read the pages in the text. Most of the other students still didn’t connect the idea of being stuck on a problem with looking for help or explanations in their text.

The third time, I actually gave a brief explanation and an oral example (not on the board) before telling them to read their text and try the problems. Perhaps because I didn’t wait very long between trial 2 and 3, or maybe because they were catching on, it seemed to go a bit better. There was still a "bright" group of male students in particular who wouldn’t do anything without direct explanation from a teacher, and who still wouldn’t read the textbook on their own to find information. They often requested specific examples of every type of problem they could encounter. I found this confusing, as they were doing well in the class and were mostly labelled "gifted." I found myself wondering whether they were labelled gifted because they could elicit all the required information from their teachers, or whether they were actually creative of self-motivated.

It was interesting to notice that the students who did the best under these circumstances were, not surprisingly, those who chose to work in groups.There was a group of girls who sat near the front of the class who thought of themselves as "dumb" or at least not scientifically-inclined. They often came up with interesting answers and, when working together, could at least put together a coherent plan or set of steps to answer a question. They were not always right (although they knew way more than they thought they did ) but they came up with some interesting ideas. The group of boys in the middle of the room was collectively one of the best working groups. They solved a lot of problems together and were very good at debating answers amongst themselves. The small group of three girls in the back left of the class were very methodical and very good at eventually working through problems, although they often claimed they "didn’t know what they were doing."

In essence, I think I discovered that this class was not very good at finding information in their textbooks and applying it to problem-solving without direction, guidance and confirmation from the teacher. I wonder why. I assume that all their information has always been given to them, outlined and ready to use. I think this is unfortunate, to say the least, and in a age when information-processing and application is becoming increasingly relevant. I am going to keep watch over my own teaching to make sure I do not fall into this trap too often.

The interesting thing about this action research is that it raised more questions than it solved. If I were to do it again, I would do it in the opposite order, offering less and less information or formal teaching as I went. I think that would cause less panic, and would ease them into the experience. I am interested now in how groups work, in the observations that result in a student being labelled gifted, and in whether textbooks deserve our faith and trust in them (I know they often don’t--what are the realistic alternatives?). It would also be interesting to flow an ESL student’s experiences and see whether this technique is really being "fair" to them, given that a teacher may be able to better convey the information to them than a written source. At any rate, I think I have about 30 years to find out these answers, and to discover what questions they raise.

 

---