Sulaiman M.
Al-Balushi
*a and
Ibrahim S.
Al-Harthy
b
aSultan Qaboos University – Curriculum & Instruction, Alkhod, Muscat, Oman. E-mail: sbalushi@squ.edu.om
bSultan Qaboos University – Psychology Department, Alkhod, Muscat, Oman
First published on 17th June 2015
The aim of the current study was to investigate students' mind wandering while reading different types of textual narrations (macroscopic and submicroscopic) in chemistry. Another goal was to determine the relationship between mind wandering and students' reading comprehension. The participants were 65 female ninth grade students in Oman. Using a computer screen, participants were required to read about sodium chloride. A probe-catch procedure was used to measure students' mind wandering. Half of the slides presented textual narrations at the macroscopic level and the other half presented narrations at the submicroscopic level. We gave the students a paper and pencil reading comprehension test at the conclusion of the reading task. The findings indicated that participants' mind wandering while reading submicroscopic textual narrations was significantly higher when compared to reading macroscopic textual narrations. Also, there was a significant negative relationship between mind wandering and reading comprehension for both macroscopic and submicroscopic textual narrations. Implications and future research are discussed.
There have been different attempts to cognitively understand students' cognitive processing of macroscopic and submicroscopic concepts. Since the macroscopic level is the observable domain of chemistry and the submicroscopic level is the unobservable level, students' conceptualization of each of them has not been the same (Taber, 2013; Gulacar et al., 2014; Springer, 2014). Different studies investigated students' cognitive processes when conceptualizing macroscopic and submicroscopic entities and processes. Generally speaking, the level of abstractness for submicroscopic concepts is considered to be higher than for macroscopic concepts of the physical world (Gericke and Hagberg, 2007; Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013b; Al-Balushi and Coll, 2013; Taber, 2013). In fact, viewing and manipulating chemical representations in the physical world or providing learners with information-rich representations places less cognitive load than processing them solely in the student's mind (Cranford et al., 2014; Springer, 2014). In addition, higher-performance students, who are able to handle higher cognitive loads, could represent the chemical phenomena at macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic levels better than lower-performance students (Gulacar et al., 2014). Interestingly, presenting unconnected macroscopic and submicroscopic information places more cognitive load on learners' working memory than does integrating different levels by which learners could conceptualize linkages among them (Milenković et al., 2014).
Another cognitive aspect related to students' conceptualization of the macroscopic and submicroscopic entities and processes is their conception of “size and scale”. Students' estimation of the spatial scales of submicroscopic entities is less accurate compared with macroscopic ones (Tretter et al., 2006; Jones and Taylor, 2009; Jones et al., 2011). Not only is students' estimation of scales negatively affected as they move from the macroscopic to submicroscopic, but also their doubt in the existence of natural entities increases. Students express more suspicion about the existence of more abstract theoretical entities, such as electron clouds and photons, than less abstract entities, such as meteorites, body cells and bacteria (Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013b). In addition, since they lack definite details, more theoretical entities trigger more vivid mental images than more concrete entities (Al-Balushi, 2013b). Another cognitive attribute that distinguishes students' conceptualization at both the macroscopic and submicroscopic levels is spatial ability. Much of students' success in understanding different macroscopic and submicroscopic entities and phenomena is linked to their spatial ability (Carter et al., 1987; Pribyl and Bodner, 1987; Yang et al., 2003; Wu and Shah, 2004; Wang and Barrow, 2011).
Collectively, the research results discussed above reveal that learners' cognitive processing and conceptualization of entities and phenomena at the macroscopic and submicroscopic levels in chemistry are related to the level of abstractness (Gericke and Hagberg, 2007; Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013b; Al-Balushi and Coll, 2013; Taber, 2013), cognitive load (Cranford et al., 2014; Gulacar et al., 2014; Springer, 2014), learners' estimation of size and scale at both levels (Tretter et al., 2006; Jones and Taylor, 2009; Jones et al., 2011) learners' distrust of the existence of scientific entities (Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013b) and spatial ability required (Carter et al., 1987; Pribyl and Bodner, 1987; Yang et al., 2003; Wu and Shah, 2004; Wang and Barrow, 2011). Due to the differences between macroscopic and submicroscopic levels, the current study focuses on finding whether mind wandering can be added to the list of these differences (mentioned above) and eventually contributes to our interpretations of students' comprehension. It should be noted that some of the above cognitive parameters might be considered to be causes of the differences between macroscopic and submicroscopic, while others might be considered to be consequences of these differences. Mind wandering is probably one of the consequences. However, the disparity between these cognitive parameters is outside the scope of this paper.
It might be argued that if students' minds are wandering, it means that they are not putting in the necessary mental effort, i.e. they are not paying attention. This would obviously lead to a slower reading rate and lower comprehension. However, since we are comparing between two different types of textual narrations (i.e. macroscopic and submicroscopic), findings will help us decide which type, if any, leads to more mind wandering. Understanding this will help chemistry educators, especially curriculum designers and teachers, to initiate instructional techniques that reduce mind wandering when it comes to using the type of text that leads to more mind wandering.
Perhaps the situation in which the disruptive effects of mind wandering have been most thoroughly explored is that of reading (Schooler et al., 2004; Smallwood et al., 2008; Reichle et al., 2010; Smilek et al., 2010; Smallwood, 2011). During reading, when the mind starts wandering to unrelated feelings and thoughts, the eyes keep on scanning the words without paying attention to their meaning (Smallwood, 2011). More specifically, mind wandering leads to item-specific comprehension deficits as well as model-building deficits (Smallwood et al., 2008). In addition, mind wandering is associated with a reduced coupling between motor responses and their lexical determinants (Smallwood, 2011). Unfortunately, this disengagement from the external environment that has been observed in reading tasks appears to occur in many other performance settings, with important implications (Smallwood, 2011; Matthew and Thomas, 2014).
A study conducted by Foulsham et al. (2013) investigated the differences in eye movements and mind wandering made during reading. Participants were introduced to 48 key sentences (24 with low frequency target words and 24 with high frequency target words). Eye movement was recorded while reading. Mind wandering was measured by using a probe screen that asked subjects to answer whether they were on task or not. The study presented multiple differences between reading prior to a mind wandering response and reading when on task. The consequences of students' mind wandering were slower reading times, longer average fixation duration and an absence of the word frequency effect on gaze duration. Interestingly, during mind wandering the link between eye scanning and word identification decoupled, supporting the disengagement given above.
To date, mind wandering is measured by self-report measures. Previous investigations have used one of two methods: self-catch or probe-catch. In a “self-catch” procedure, participants are instructed to self-monitor their attention and respond when it strays from the task, thus identifying their own mind wandering (Ward and Wegner, 2013). An alternative is the “probe-catch” procedure, whereby a probe sporadically asks participants whether they were on task or mind wandering. The self-catch procedure requires meta-awareness and thus monitors episodes where the participant is both off task and becomes aware of this fact (Ward and Wegner, 2013). In the present study, we used the probe-catch procedure—asking participants to respond to thought probes.
1. Does students' mind wandering while reading textual narrations in chemistry differ for macroscopic and submicroscopic texts?
2. What is the nature of the relationship between students' mind wandering and their comprehension of textual narrations (macroscopic and submicroscopic) in chemistry?
Slide | Content | X-version of order (received randomly by one half of the participants) | Y-version of order (received randomly by the other half of the participants) | Duration (min) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1st | Instructions | |||
2nd | First section of text | Macroscopic | Submicroscopic | 3 |
3rd | First mind wandering question | — | — | 0.5 |
4th | Second section of text | Macroscopic | Submicroscopic | 3 |
5th | Second mind wandering question | — | — | 0.5 |
6th | Third section of text | Macroscopic | Submicroscopic | 3 |
7th | Third mind wandering question | — | — | 0.5 |
8th | Fourth section of text | Submicroscopic | Macroscopic | 3 |
9th | Fourth mind wandering question | — | — | 0.5 |
10th | Fifth section of text | Submicroscopic | Macroscopic | 3 |
11th | Fifth mind wandering question | — | — | 0.5 |
12th | Sixth section of text | Submicroscopic | Macroscopic | 3 |
13th | Sixth mind wandering question | — | — | 0.5 |
14th | Directing participants to do the reading comprehension test which was given for 20 minutes | — | — | 0.5 |
After each text slide, the computer presented for 30 seconds a slide that had a mind wandering question asking participants to determine whether their thoughts were on or off task. During the 30 seconds, the participant was instructed to respond to the question on a paper-based answer sheet. Then when these 30 seconds were over, the computer screen moved to another text slide that was presented for three minutes. Once all slides had been shown and participants had responded to all six mind wandering questions, a comprehension test was given for 20 minutes. Since participants were required to answer the mind-wandering question during which they needed to focus and check out an answer in a given paper, we believe that their mind wandering diminished after each question, before they moved to the next reading slide.
The word count for the textual slides was 272.5 on average: macroscopic (3 slides; 273.67 words in average; total = 821) and submicroscopic (3 slides; 271.33 words in average; total = 814). This variation in word count among slides was caused by the desire to have complete idea(s) within each slide. Splitting the same idea between two slides was thought to add a distraction to participants.
The participants were made aware before they left for the computer lab that they would be asked to respond to a research instrument. It was also made clear to participants that their completion of the instrument would not count as part of their course mark. The study was performed in compliance with the relevant laws and Ministry of Education guidelines, with the school's permission to conduct the study being obtained. No risks, such as tiredness or potential serious damage to participants, were anticipated in the study as the time they spent during the administration was relatively short and the nature of the instrument was at the participants' cognitive level. Safety precautions in the computer lab were taken into consideration. The computer lab that hosted the study was built by the Ministry, equipped with modern devices and designed according to high safety specifications. The study was implemented by a cooperative teacher who was present during the implementation of the study. At no time were participants left alone in the lab without monitoring. Data obtained from the study were dealt with securely by the researchers and no one other than the two of them was made aware of the participants' scores. Participants' identities were kept anonymous.
The scientific content of the narrations was validated by a panel of four referees: two science educators working at a national university and two experienced ninth grade chemistry teachers. The panel was asked to check the content for scientific accuracy, readability of the text and its appropriateness for grade nine students. Based on this panel's suggestions, some minor linguistic corrections in phrases were made.
It might be predicted that since participants were anticipating the mind-wandering question, they would simultaneously have been thinking about these probes, as if the nature of the study could lead to mind wandering. Also, one might argue that since participants knew that they had to answer a test at the end, then answering the mind-wandering questions was not totally independent. Thus, some participants might make more effort to focus on what they were reading because of their anticipation of the test. However, this aspect of the study was controlled for both macroscopic and submicroscopic narrations. Therefore, one should not worry that the nature of the study might confound the findings since the same procedure was applied to both types of narrations.
The decision to use parametric statistics to describe and analyse mind wandering Likert-scale data is supported by statistical analysis literature (Knapp, 1990; Minium et al., 1993; Norman, 2010; Boone and Boone, 2012; Murray, 2013; Sullivan and Artino, 2013) suggesting two schools of thought regarding the appropriate statistical analyses for Likert-scale data. One school of thought asks researchers to use the median instead of the mean when analysing such data. However, the second school of thought considers using means and standard deviations as an appropriate method to represent Likert-scale data and welcomes ‘any operations that yield lawful relationships and accurate predictions’ (Minium et al., 1993, p. 77). Norman (2010) states that ‘parametric methods can be utilized without concern for “getting the wrong answer”’ (p. 625).
Instrument | Variable | N | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|
a MW: mind wandering. b Total score: 20, score range: 1–17. | ||||
Mind wandering | MWa score | 65 | 2.03 | 0.63 |
Macroscopic MW | 65 | 1.92 | 0.76 | |
Submicroscopic MW | 65 | 2.14 | 0.73 | |
Reading comprehension test | Comprehension scoreb | 65 | 9.50 | 3.86 |
Macroscopic sub-score | 61 | 4.88 | 2.17 | |
Submicroscopic sub-score | 60 | 4.70 | 2.27 |
To answer the first question: Does students' mind wandering while reading textual narrations in chemistry differ for macroscopic and submicroscopic texts? a paired-samples t-test was computed (Table 3). The results indicate that the mean score on mind wandering performance for submicroscopic textual narrations (m = 2.14; SD = 0.73) was significantly greater at the p < 0.001 level than the mean score on mind wandering performance for macroscopic textual narrations (m = 1.92; SD = 0.76). In spite of the significant statistical differences between the mind wandering means for macroscopic and submicroscopic, it was noted that neither mind wandering means were high. They fell under the category of ‘attending to the text most of the time’. This reflects that participants were paying attention to the task and taking the experiment seriously.
To answer the second question: What is the relationship between students' mind wandering and their comprehension of textual narrations (macroscopic and submicroscopic) in chemistry? a Pearson correlation was conducted among the variables (Table 4). There was a negative significant correlation coefficient (r = −0.49) between participants' mind mind-wandering score and their reading comprehension.
Instrument | Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a p < 0.001. | ||||||
Mind wandering (MW) | (1) MW score | 1 | ||||
(2) Macroscopic MW | 0.85a | 1 | ||||
(3) Submicroscopic MW | 0.83a | 0.42a | 1 | |||
Reading comprehension test | (4) Comprehension score | −0.49a | −0.33a | −0.51a | 1 | |
(5) Macroscopic sub-score | −0.53a | −0.34a | −0.54a | 0.87a | 1 | |
(6) Submicroscopic sub-score | −0.31a | −0.19 | −0.34a | 0.88a | 0.52a |
Different studies have tackled the phenomenon of mind wandering during reading and could help us understand the higher mind wandering score during the reading of submicroscopic narrations. One factor that contributes to keeping the mind focused is the interaction between the text information and representations of the more general context related to what is being read (Schooler et al., 2011; Smallwood, 2011). During mind wandering this interaction is reduced, and the reader becomes unable to build a situational model of what they read. Their inability to choose the important linguistic features of the text and link different text elements leads to weak attention and prevents constructing desired meaning (Smallwood et al., 2007; Smallwood et al., 2008; Foulsham et al., 2013). A coupled processing between two types of representations takes place during normal reading: (1) external information presented by the text which is being read and (2) internal representations in mind of the reader. When the brain starts mind wandering, this coupling interaction breaks down. This reduced external coupling justifies the significant negative impact of mind wandering on reading comprehension (Smallwood et al., 2007; Schooler et al., 2011; Smallwood, 2011). Also, mindless reading reduces the processing of visual information (Smilek et al., 2010) and the reading pace becomes slower (Foulsham et al., 2013).
Less interesting text leads to more mind wandering (Dixon and Bortolussi, 2013). Also, the presence of difficult, new and/or low frequency words within the text is associated with longer gaze durations and leads to longer total inspection times (Sereno and Rayner, 2003; Smallwood et al., 2008; Foulsham et al., 2013), contributing to a slower reading pace (Foulsham et al., 2013) and worse reading comprehension (Smallwood et al., 2008). This description of words could match submicroscopic words. They are more abstract (Gericke and Hagberg, 2007; Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013b; Al-Balushi and Coll, 2013; Taber, 2013), less frequently encountered by learners than macroscopic description of natural phenomena and they represent more difficult concepts than macroscopic words (Sanger et al., 2013; Kelly, 2014; Milenković et al., 2014; Prilliman, 2014; Ryan and Herrington, 2014; Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014; Warfa et al., 2014). Students, when interacting with submicroscopic explanations, are required to believe in the existence of different unobservable theoretical entities, to comprehend their characteristics and behaviors and to utilize this knowledge in constructing explanations for different phenomena. There is no doubt that this is an advanced level of cognitive processing (Taber, 2013).
We admit that each of the two narrations (macroscopic and submicroscopic) possesses a degree of unfamiliarity and exerts a level of cognitive load on the mind of the learner. Thus, one would anticipate that characteristics such as unfamiliarity and greater cognitive load would result in less efficient reading. However, we did not know, before the results of the current study, whether this unfamiliarity and cognitive load were at the level that would lead one type of text to have a greater mind-wandering effect than the other. The current study contributes partially to providing an answer to this query. Obviously, these cognitive demands are not necessarily at the same extensive level when dealing with macroscopic entities and processes. Although a great deal of macroscopic terminology and materials are not familiar to students, and they start learning about new chemicals in the school laboratory (Taber, 2013), they could still see these materials, observe the changes happening to them, manipulate their quantities and watch the consequences and relate to observations familiar from their everyday and previous experience more than they do for submicroscopic terminology. This helps our brains to chunk information by relating new knowledge to existing mental schemata and thus reduces the load on the memory span (Taber, 2013). This is not available to such an extent at the submicroscopic level. Thus, the new abstract and theoretical terminology presented in the submicroscopic narrations in the current study might hinder students' attempts to make sense of what is being presented. To conceptualize the submicroscopic entities and phenomena, students have to rely, on many occasions, on their imagination. Relying solely on the student's mind to process chemical representations would increase the cognitive load and reduce the possibility of producing meaningful learning (Springer, 2014). Previous research reveals that not everybody can imagine submicroscopic entities and their dynamic interactions (Al-Balushi, 2009; Al-Balushi and Coll, 2013). Thus, it could be plausible to suggest that because of the unfamiliarity and abstract nature of submicroscopic words and the cognitive load they add while reading them, they were associated with slower reading peace, longer gaze durations and longer total inspection times, leading to longer mind wandering. Nevertheless, more in-depth data, both quantitative and qualitative, are needed to explore the degree of unfamiliarity and cognitive load that learners experience when interacting with macroscopic and submicroscopic narrations.
One solution to mind wandering is metacognitive training such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy which trains individuals to reduce mind wandering by changing the relationship between individuals and their thoughts (Smallwood et al., 2007). In fact, metacognitive skills play an important role in students' performance in chemistry (Taber, 2013; Mathabathe and Potgieter, 2014). This idea could be considered as a future quasi-experimental study, in which a remedial programme that is based on metacognitive training is offered to participants while reading chemistry text. The effect on mind wandering could then be measured. Another solution could be making the text more interesting (Dixon and Bortolussi, 2013) by incorporating diagrams. Further research could investigate learners' mind wandering when presented with submicroscopic text only and with text combined with submicroscopic diagrams.
One of the limitations of the current study is that it does not count cognitive load while participants are conducting the task. Further research could use one of the cognitive load measures (Milenković et al., 2014) and calculate how it mediates the relationship between reading comprehension at both levels (macroscopic and submicroscopic) and mind wandering. Another limitation of the current study is that it overlooks the possible effect of participants' spatial ability in their reading comprehension of the macroscopic and submicroscopic textual narrations. It would be interesting if learners' spatial ability is added to the research variables, and its relationship with mind wandering and reading comprehension is analyzed.
Text slide | Content |
---|---|
a
![]() |
|
Macroscopic | |
Slide 1 |
– Introduction: importance of table salt in our livesa
– History of table salt – Its physical appearance – Where it can be found – Different uses – Production: by evaporation of sea water |
Slide 2 |
– Production: by freezing of sea water in cold regions
– Production: by mining – Its scientific name and the chemical elements that compose it – Physical properties of sodium |
Slide 3 |
– Uses of sodium in industry
– Biological uses of sodium in the human body – Physical properties of chlorine – Uses of chlorine in industry |
Submicroscopic | |
Slide 4 |
– Location of sodium and chlorine in the periodic table
– Chemical properties of alkali metals group – Chemical properties of halogens group – Description of the reaction between sodium atoms and chlorine atoms to produce sodium chloride |
Slide 5 |
– Description of how the formation of sodium chloride leads to chemical stability for sodium and chlorine atoms
– Description of the sodium chloride crystal, the arrangement of atoms and the chemical bond between them |
Slide 6 |
– The chemical explanation of the dissolving of sodium chloride in water
– The electrochemical analysis of sodium chloride solution |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 |