A comparison of three levels of diagnostic-prescriptive remediation of student misconceptions relating to stoichiometric calculations

Cooke, Brendan A. (1985) A comparison of three levels of diagnostic-prescriptive remediation of student misconceptions relating to stoichiometric calculations. Masters thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.

[English] PDF (Migrated (PDF/A Conversion) from original format: (application/pdf)) - Accepted Version Available under License - The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. Download (11MB) [English] PDF - Accepted Version Available under License - The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. (Original Version)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare three levels of diagnostic-prescriptive treatment for the remediation of students' misconceptions relating to a hierarchy for stoichiometric calculations. This hierarchy was validated by a previous research (Whelan, 1982). -- The sample consisted of 220 subjects drawn from 13 intact Level II chemistry classes in five Newfoundland high schools. Following regular classroom instruction in stoichiometry, a diagnostic test was administered. Three treatment groups were formed in each class by stratified random assignment based on ranked scores from this test. Each student was remediated on skills which he/she had failed on the pretest. Remediation was through an individualized student booklet, a difference version of which was administered to each group. One level of remediation (treatment A) consisted of instructional content sequenced in the order that skills in the hierarchy appeared on the pretest (non-hierarchical arrangement). A second level of remediation (treatment B) involved an instructional booklet in which direct reference to the learning hierarchy was made throughout, and instructional content was sequenced in the order of skills in the hierarchy. The third level of remediation (treatment C) consisted of the hierarchical arrangement of treatment B, with an additional feature - the identification of specific student misconceptions as part of the remediation. A posttest, parallel in construction and content to the first, was administered 1-3 days after the remedial session. -- Two null hypotheses were tested. Hypotheses 1 relates to hierarchical versus non-hierarchical arrangement of remedial content, in effect comparing treatments A and B with regard to achievement gains following remediation. Hypothesis 2 relates to remediation employing the identification of specific student misconceptions, in effect comparing treatments B and C. Analysis of covariance revealed that there was no significant difference in achievement gains among the three treatment groups (p > .05). However, post hoc analysis yielded a group of non-remediated students whose achievement gains were significantly less than those of the treatment groups. -- Patterns of responses on the pretest and posttest were also analyzed and reported with regard to misconceptions and overall improvement on specific skills. Again no significant differences in treatment groups were found, but group C consistently showed the greatest gains in the analyses based on treatment.

Actions (login required)

View Item