Multimodal Learning in Chemistry

Ask the Cognitive Scientist is a column in the quarterly newsletter American Educator, written by Daniel Willingham. In my quest to understanding the role of cognition in learning, I’ve read a number of Willingham’s more technical papers. But to communicate these ideas, I’ve found his columns helpful. I’d been thinking about why the idea of ‘learning styles’ persists amongst my students despite the evidence, i.e., students think they have a preferred modality of learning and that if only they were taught through that modality they would do better in their classes. Sure enough, Willingham addresses this in the summer 2005 issue.

He begins his column by emphasizing his main point: “What cognitive science has taught us is that children do differ in their abilities with different modalities, but teaching the child in his best modality doesn’t affect his educational achievement. What does matter is whether the child is taught in the content’s best modality. All students learn more when content drives the choice of modality. In this column, I will describe some of the research on matching modality strength to the modality of instruction. I will also address why the idea of tailoring instruction to a student’s best modality is so enduring – despite substantial evidence that it is wrong.”

At this point, you should just read his column. I won’t go over his arguments (which I find persuasive) but instead consider what this means for teaching chemistry.

Let’s dive in. What content modalities do we use in chemistry?

I can’t imagine learning chemistry without pictures. We’re trying to imagine tiny ‘invisible’ particles called molecules. These molecules consist of smaller particles called atoms which are held together by chemical bonds. If you’re reading this, you’re reading a bunch of words. And if these words sound like gobbledygook to you… It would be much easier to show you a picture of what to imagine – here’s the ubiquitous water molecule made up of one oxygen atom (red) and two hydrogen atoms (white). But different representations can emphasize different aspects, but can also be misleading in other aspects.

Chemistry takes place when molecules collide, breaking some chemical bonds, and re-forming new chemical bonds. Atoms from one molecule might move to another as part of this process. This can be viewed in video; the dynamic picture conveys this much better than a static picture. But this is a very idealized view because most chemistry that we ‘experience’ takes place in solution where gazillions of molecules with gazillions of others. The video would look like a mess and the viewer would be hard-pressed to focus on what’s important.

Thus, abstraction is a key skill that the chemistry student must learn. There are many different kinds of models (none are anywhere close to perfect) used for all manner of chemistry we’re trying to illustrate or explain. Using graphs with a time axis allows us to abstract a dynamic situation using a seemingly static representation. Mathematical equations help to encapsulate what’s going on even if they can be hard to understand when first introduced. And I suspect it helps the students when I put together a seemingly multi-modal presentation while speaking, gesturing and writing. I can understand why it’s difficult to just ‘read the textbook’ even with electronic versions that includes fancy graphics, hyperlinks, and videos.

I’ve been having a similar experience this semester while sitting in on a colleague’s survey of biochemistry course. I’ve looked into a standard fat biochem textbook as a reference when I’ve needed some information. I’ve also read the Manga version, but I confess that I’ve forgotten much of it. Being in class ‘live’ is helping me learn the material in a much more facile way, or at least that’s how it feels. Admittedly, I haven’t been doing the reading or any of the coursework; although I do have strong chemistry scaffolding and some biological knowledge. To really learn the material, I’d likely have to teach biochemistry, and I might do so someday!

Another important aspect of many chemistry classes is learning lab skills. One might call this the ‘kinesthetic’ modality, although I think that basic observation and manipulation skills are a key aspect to one’s chemical education. Measuring out the chemicals and making solutions bridges the abstract to reality. Learning how to use an instrument to take data reinforces the ‘mediated’ nature of chemistry – using a device to help us ‘see’ what we cannot see with the naked eye. Students manipulate 3D molecular models to get a sense of molecular shape (important in how molecules interact with one another) that would otherwise be difficult to represent in an image.

I’d like to think that after all this, the students do learn some chemistry. Some learn much, others learn little, at least based on the spread in final exam scores. I still meet people who upon learning that I teach chemistry say that they were ‘bad’ at chemistry and didn’t understand it. Very few blame their teachers. One thing that Willingham argues in another Ask the Cognitive Scientist column is that student need to be thinking about the subject matter to remember it. That thinking (which is hard work) could happen while listening to a lecture or doing a hands-on experiment in lab. Equally, there could be very little thought in either activity. There are so many factors; I suppose that’s why I continue to be fascinated by teaching and learning.