Article

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Periodic Properties and Inquiry: Student Mental Models Observed

during a Periodic Table Puzzle Activity
Kathleen G. Larson, George R. Long,*, and Michael W. Briggs

Department of Psychology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania 15705, United States

Department of Chemistry, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania 15705, United States

ABSTRACT: The mental models of both novice and advanced

chemistry students were observed while the students performed a
periodic table activity. The mental model framework seems to be
an eective way of analyzing student behavior during learning
activities. The analysis suggests that students do not recognize
periodic trends through the examination of elemental data. Even
simple relationships (e.g., the sequence of atomic mass values)
proved important to novice understanding of the trends in the
periodic table. The use of common heuristics for decision making,
and well-known common errors associated with those heuristics
independent of the students chemistry background, were also
observed.
KEYWORDS: Chemical Education Research, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Misconceptions/Discrepant Events,
Periodicity/Periodic Table, Problem Solving/Decision Making
FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

T he periodic table is an iconic tool in chemistry, and its

study is an essential part of any introductory chemistry
course. Consequently, numerous approaches and methods have
been proposed to help students learn the details of the
organizational structure of the periodic table.1 Indeed,
discussion continues regarding the best representations of the
table;2 these often center on the educational impact of the
organizational choice.3 Despite the questions raised in such
discussions, one format of the periodic table is used in the vast
majority of introductory level textbooks. Thus, it is important
to determine the various ways students interact with this table,
and those aspects of the table that eect their learning; that is,
the construction of a mental model of the periodic table.
The activity studied here is based on a well-known inquiry
activity in which students independently explore elemental data
to learn periodic trends with minimal instructor guidance.4
Criswell5 has done an analysis of the important concepts
encountered by students seeking to understand the periodic
table, and suggested a sequence of activities to enhance their
learning. He points out several diculties with inquiry-based
activities in which students act as Mendeleev for a day and try
to arrange unknown elements into the sequences found in the
periodic table. Criswell points out that the arrangement of the
students learn during an activity, we must consider both the
important organizing features of the periodic table, as Criswell
does, and students prior knowledge of the periodic table.
Our objective in this study was to examine students mental
models operative in performing a periodic table puzzle activity.
The periodic table puzzle used in the study is available online.6
Examining learners mental models will provide information
regarding how prior knowledge impacts activities designed to
help students learn about the periodic table. From our
perspective, this is the addition of new information to their
mental models of the periodic table, which thus informs the
future development of such activities. In general, these studies
bring to light important cognitive aspects of student learning
that may have an impact on how inquiry-based chemistry
learning activities are structured. The fundamental goal of such
studies is to allow the design of learning activities that rely less
on a best-practices approach7 in favor of a more cognitive-
theory-based design. A theoretical approach to learning activity
design is more generalizable to various learning environments,
and provides a much-needed foundation for pedagogical
practice. Our view is that the results of this study can be
applied by a practitioner to any activity intended to introduce
students to the periodic table.

periodic table by Mendeleev is but a small aspect of students
conception of the periodic table. Todays chemistry students THE MENTAL MODEL
look at elements very dierently than Mendeleev, because
properties and details of atomic structure, unavailable to The concept of the mental models used in this work derives
Mendeleev, can inform students on the structure of the periodic from work by Johnson-Laird,8 but has been rened to include
table. The prior knowledge students bring to their study of the
periodic table is variable. Thus, if we intend to describe how Published: September 17, 2012
2012 American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc. 1491 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200625e | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 14911498
Journal of Chemical Education
Table 1. Comparative Examples of How Process Skills Act as Sensemaking Processes
Foraging Process SkillsOperating with Uncertainty
Observing Using ones senses to gather information about an object
or event
Measuring Using standard measures or estimations to describe
specic dimensions of an object/event
Inferring Formulating assumptions or possible explanations based
upon observations
Predicting Guessing the most likely outcome of a future event based
upon a pattern of evidence
Formulating Stating the proposed solutions or expected outcomes for
hypotheses experiments
specic constituents. These constituents provide a method for
dening the mental models of individuals, and allow detailed
comparisons between study participants. This is in contrast to
the generalized mental models referred to in conceptual change
theory, in which there are no systematic structural constitu-
ents.9 Our current conceptualization of mental models is based
on the work of Lesh et al.10 We have rened and expanded the
original meanings of the proposed constituents used by Lesh et
al., and added one additional constituent, the sensemaking
process.11 The constituents of a mental model were
characterized in detail in a previous article12 in this Journal.
Briey, we dene the constituents in the following way.
A referent is the symbol, label, or object (either mental or
physical) used by a learner to construct and communi-
cate knowledge. In this study, an example of a referent is
the identity of a specic property (e.g., mass or
electronegativity). Labels for locations on the periodic
table are also referents, the p-block, for instance.
A relation is the connection between referents. It is also
the constituent that conveys hierarchy and direction
between an individual referent and a set of referents. For
instance, the relationship mass increases as you go down
the column is a relation.
Syntax is used to construct a mental model and aord the
ordering of referents and their relations so that meaning
can be assigned. For example, rules for writing chemical
symbols, and the ordering of the atomic numbers on the
periodic table are examples of syntax.
A result is the consequence of applying syntax, or a
sensemaking process to a set of referents or relations.
During an activity, a participant may conclude The
electronegativity decreases as you go down group 17.
The result can then be used later to solve related
problems.
The sensemaking processes are the part of the mental
model that acts on information, animates the available
static constituents during problem solving, and drives the
construction of new mental models. The term sense-
making was coined by Pirolli and Card12 in regard to
processes used to analyze intelligence information. Here
we generalize this concept, applying it to classroom
activities.
A fundamental sensemaking process may be a simple
heuristic. Some of these heuristics are well-known, from
fundamental studies on decision making reviewed by Tversky
and Kahneman.13 Johnson-Laird14 has shown that the frame-
work of the mental model is compatible with these descriptions
Article
Exploiting Process SkillsOperating with Certainty
Classifying Grouping or ordering objects or events into categories based
on characteristics or dened criteria
Organizing data in Making data tables and graphs for data collected
tables and graphs
Formulating models Recognizing patterns in data and making predictions based
on these patterns.
Communicating Using words, symbols, or graphics to describe an object,
action or event
Identifying causal Understanding cause and eect relationships
relationships
Identifying variables Stating the changeable factors that can aect an experiment
Characterizing Describing relationships between variables
variables
of decision processes. Clearly, decision making is an important
part of any problem solving or inquiry activity; thus, it is the
interaction of students prior knowledge and their decision
making that allows the construction of new or more detailed
mental models.
Examples of well-known simple heuristics used in sense-
making include these:
1. Representativeness, or how much does A resemble B?
Students predict that the chemical properties of an
unknown element will be similar to the properties of a
similar element.
2. Availability, or how easily is an event brought to mind?
For example, a students prediction of a correct chemical
mechanism will be based on those mechanisms most
recently studied.
3. Adjustments f rom an anchor, or how is this problem like
something I know? Often, students start a problem by
reproducing something they already know, and then
making adjustments.
Simple heuristics are typically the sensemaking process used
when a student lacks a starting point for an activity, that is, the
student is dealing with uncertainty. This often occurs when a
student has limited prior knowledge of a concept, or if the
question is asked in an unfamiliar way. However, if signicant
information is available, either provided by an instructor, or
available from a students prior knowledge, the sensemaking
processes become more complex. For example, for a novice, the
task of predicting elemental properties is accomplished using
the heuristic of representativeness, while an individual with
more information about the periodic table (i.e., greater prior
knowledge) may rely on classication of the elements into
families to accomplish the task. Thus, we divide sensemaking
into two categories, processes that deal with uncertainty,
termed foraging, and processes that operate with certainty,
termed exploiting by Pirolli and Card.15 The simple heuristics
t the foraging category.
RELATION TO PROCESS SKILLS AND INQUIRY
BASED LEARNING
One perspective of inquiry-based learning emphasizes process
skills as an important component of the activity.16 The process
skills are a dening feature of any cognitively based denition of
inquiry learning.17 Signicant overlap exists between what we
see as complex sensemaking processes, and the process skills
important for success with inquiry-based activities.18 Table 1
lists some of the process skills we view as corresponding to our
1492 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200625e | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 14911498
Journal of Chemical Education
sensemaking process constituent, and classies them as either
foraging or exploiting.
It is important to recognize that the distinction between
foraging (working with unknowns) and exploiting (working
with knowns) sometimes has more to do with the context of
the activity than the details of the process. For instance, surely
some overlap occurs with regard to the process used to predict
something, and the process used in formulating models.
However, in the case of predicting, the focus is on the result
of the prediction, and the question involved is Is there a
pattern here? When formulating a model, the focus is on
extending what is known by building relationships between a
known pattern and other knowledge. The questions involved
with formulating a model are What can I learn from this
pattern? or What can I do with this pattern? Thus, a learner
is exploiting the pattern to gain new knowledge.
The incorporation of these processes into our conception of
a mental model, the connection of the processes to more
fundamental decision making processes, and the link to other
types of constituents (e.g., referents and relationships) provides
a means to study the nature of the interaction between content
knowledge and process during inquiry-based activities,19 and
the impact of instruction on the development of process
skills.20
METHOD
The online periodic table puzzle6 requires that participants put
the elements in sequence based on properties coded by color.
The more dicult puzzles require information about relation-
ships of the element properties in both the horizontal and
vertical directions. An example of a simple puzzle is shown in
Figure 1. Students choose properties and attempt to place
Figure 1. Example of a simple periodic table puzzle.
colored element boxes in the correct position in the alkaline
earths column of the table. Under the window for atomic radius
is a mapping of values to colors for the property. Participants
can change this selection to other properties in order to place
each colored box in the correct position. The changes in color
are a cue to the ordering of the elements with respect to their
position on the periodic table. The colors play the role of a
metaphor for a selected property and illustrate clearly the
sequencing of values for that property.
The larger the range of elements included in the puzzle, the
more complex the sequencing required. In an inquiry mode in
which the students would not know all of the relationships, an
element blocks property-dependent color would provide a hint
as to the appropriate placement of the element. The students
are then expected to infer the relationships between property
1493
Article
and location based on these placements. This thought-revealing
activity closely resembles the have students be Mendeleev for a
day5 inquiry approach to introducing the periodic table,
however it is important to note that our purpose was not to
report on an actual activity, but to use the thought-revealing
activity as a probe into students cognitive processes during
study of the periodic table.
Participants were rst shown the color-coded periodic table
and asked to describe periodic trends of ve important
properties, based on the color pattern observed (mass, density,
ionization energy, electronegativity, and electron anity).
Participants were subsequently asked to solve four dierent
puzzles of increasing diculty, that is, increasing numbers of
elements involved. In each puzzle, a section of the periodic
table was removed, and the element symbols were left blank.
Students had to place the elements in the correct position on
the periodic table based only on the value of the property
(represented by the color of the element block). Participants
could change the property shown, which would change the
color of an element block accordingly. The participants each
completed two interviews. Participants were asked to talk aloud
while doing this puzzle. The students voices and actions were
recorded using Adobe Captivate software. During the rst
interview, three dierent problems were given in which sections
of the periodic table were made blank: alkaline earth metals;
row 3 elements; and the p-block elements. In the second
interview, the participant repeated the problem with a blank p-
block puzzle, and then worked on a puzzle in which the entire
periodic table was blank. Both interviews required the
participant to initially describe observed trends for the ve
dierent properties.
The participants were six undergraduate students from
Indiana University of Pennsylvania; they had varying levels of
chemistry knowledge. Of the six participants, two were
chemistry majors, Bob and Cassandra. (All student names
used here are pseudonyms.) One student, Sally, had taken a
general chemistry course in college. Annie, Ashley, and Hank
last had a chemistry course in high school. Bob and Cassandra
were senior-level students; the other participants were juniors.
The participants chemistry background is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Distribution of Participants by Chemistry
Background
Students
Pseudonyms Previous Chemistry Coursesa Category
Ashley High school chemistry Novice
Annie High school chemistry Novice
Hank High school chemistry Novice
Sally One college-level general chemistry Advanced
course
Cassandra Senior-level college chemistry courses Advanced
Bob Senior-level college chemistry courses Advanced
a
Senior-level means general, organic, inorganic, and physical chemistry
courses.
When examining qualitative data, we determined partic-
ipants mental models by identifying specic constituents in the
participants words and actions. The various constituents
provide an organized way to represent the participants thinking
and learning process. Mental models, then, can be seen to
evolve as new constituents are added, and less useful
constituents are ignored. The use of well-dened constituents
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200625e | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 14911498
Journal of Chemical Education
allows a comparison between the domain-specic constituents
and constituents used by the learner. The comparison provides
important details concerning how a student is interacting with
information, and a direct determination of the learners relevant
prior knowledge. Our analysis seeks to identify these
constituents within audio and video recordings of the
participants activity in solving the periodic table puzzle.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Participants were observed using several important referents and
relationships while solving the periodic table puzzle. Far and
away the most common and important relation used by the
participants was the relationship between mass and location on
the periodic table, namely, mass increases from top to bottom
on the periodic table, and from left to right. For example,
Cassandra noted, As you go from left to right the masses get
higher. Bob also noted, Mass increases left to right across the
period. Ashley also relied on the mass, remarking, Now all
that is left is blue and they all have a low mass level. Hank
observed the regular nature of the change in mass as he
mentioned, The mass one [property] was more linear. Not
only does the property provide signicant discrimination
between elements, the regularity of the change provides some
discrimination both across the rows, and down the columns. In
some instances, participants could use the mass property alone
to complete signicant portions of the puzzle.
The advanced participants also relied on knowledge of
specic groupings on the periodic tables. They consistently
used referents describing areas on the table, such as the d-block,
transition metals, nonmetals, noble gases, halogens, and so on.
Such groupings provide some information about the con-
nection between location and property. For example, Cassandra
noted, Electronegativity is greatest at uorine, it decreases as
you proceed from the upper right hand corner to the bottom
left hand corner. Knowledge of the relationship that halogens
have high electronegativities and the noble gases do not helped
some participants choose the correct location of the element
blocks. In particular, Cassandra used a combination of
electronegativity relationships, and atomic mass relationships to
nd the location of a number of element blocks. When asked,
Why did you pick electronegativity?, Cassandra responded:
Because I know how the trend looks, cause it kind of goes like
this [gestures with the mouse indicating the electronegativity
trend.] And then these are all the lighter elements they go in
these two rows, and if I can just gure out the color
sequencing....
The other advanced participant, Bob, also relied heavily on
electronegativity. In fact, he pointed out several relationships
dealing with electronegativity:
Electronegativity increases from left to right across the period.
Fluorine has a higher electronegativity because it has the
greatest anity for an electron. Hydrogen is green in the
group 1 column because hydrogen still has a great anity for
an electron because it has an unlled s orbital and it doesnt
experience shielding.
Despite some inaccuracies in describing electronegativity, Bob
clearly shows detailed prior knowledge of the concept through
the many complex relationships, and applies this knowledge to
the solution of the puzzle.
Often certain general relationships are of great value in
solving the periodic puzzle. In particular, knowledge of the
general design of the periodic tablethat elements in the same
columns would have certain similar propertieswas essential,
1494
Article
even though detailed understanding of these properties was not
available to the participant. Hank noted, The noble gases and
the second column and last column are completely blue,
observing similarities in properties. Additionally, understanding
of color relationships and general knowledge of shapes and
patterns seemed to be helpful, particularly for those participants
with limited chemistry background.
The novice participants sometimes go into great detail
regarding the colors, and the shapes of patterns they saw on the
table. For instance, while solving the p-block puzzle, Annie
noticed that rows were dierent colors. After some trial and
error she noted that for mass, [T]he colors [in row 6] went
from an orange [radon] to more of a gold, to a real really bright
yellow. This is a result, which she used to predict the colored
element blocks that would go in row 5 and 6, though the result
had no utility beyond solving this puzzle. She claimed, [T]he
next I think are going to be green, the next row, which was
correct. However, when she began to solve row 2 and 3, the
colors depicting mass were more similar, and harder to
discriminate. Annie stated, [I]t looks like it could possibly
be hard, because both rows had blue colors. To solve the
puzzle, Annie chose several dierent properties, and
determined from the color distribution of the element blocks
the property that she felt would allow her to locate the blocks.
The property choices were based on the colors of the elements
that need to be placed. She chose boiling point, [B]ecause
these greens match up,...its kind of a dierent color scale now.
She continued choosing properties to work with based on the
discrimination she saw in the unplaced elements, and placed
elements based on similarity of properties, noticing that
nitrogen electron anity was an oddball (this is of course a
result that would require detailed background knowledge to
explain). Clearly, Annie was obtaining results only applicable to
the puzzle, but was demonstrating a fairly complex sensemaking
process. Additionally, the names of the elements seemed to
have signicance for Annie, as she noted every element name
that she successfully placed in the table.
OBSERVING THE SENSEMAKING PROCESS
The puzzle software records both the time required to
complete the puzzle and the number of incorrect element
placements. While this has substantial limitations, and should
not be viewed as an absolute metric, we can at least use these
values as a relative characterization of the eciency of the
participants decision process. The values are useful in that they
provide a general overview of how the participants performed
on the puzzle. These data are summarized in Table 3.
Bob, a senior chemistry major, had the most errors, but also
showed the greatest improvement. The number of errors does
not correlate with the amount of time spent on the puzzle, as
Table 3. Comparative Quantitative Results for Selected Runs
of the Periodic Table Activity, Solving the p-Block Elements
Time to Number of Time to Number of
Completion Errors in Completion Errors in
Participants for Trial 1, s Trial 1 for Trial 2, s Trial 2
Ashley 650 37 565 57
Annie 289 35 304 103
Hank 277 34 239 72
Sally 860 21 398 12
Cassandra 278 31 316 12
Bob 334 114 254 43
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200625e | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 14911498
Journal of Chemical Education
Sally showed the greatest average time to complete the puzzle.
While these are not direct measures of success on the puzzle, it
does tell us something about the general strategies used in each
case. For example, a low number of errors reect a process that
did not rely on signicant trial and error. The higher error rates
suggest that a trial and error based strategy was used.
Examination of the video captures of the students performing
the activity support this assertion.
Interestingly, Sally and Cassandra showed both the fewest
average errors, and a signicant decrease in the number of
errors for trial 2. This suggests that they were able to improve
the approach to solving the puzzle. In fact, Sally also showed a
signicant reduction in the amount of time required to
complete the puzzle, a further indication that the method
used to solve the puzzle was learned, and used nearly two
months later (the time between interviews). Bob also had fewer
errors the second time he performed the activity. A closer look
at his strategy shows that during his rst trial he chose
electronegativity as the property to place the elements, and
then ran into diculty, and began guessing. During his second
trial, he initially chose atomic number, stating, I will pick, um,
[pause] I guess Ill go with atomic number...the way these
pieces should be ordered with atomic number is the darkest
blues should be the period 1. Bob continued to complete the
puzzle using only atomic number, which was a bit more
eective than electronegativity, and required less guessing. Bob
could predict which period the element block should go into,
though he had some trouble distinguishing color shades. It is
not clear from the data what led to this dierent choice of
physical property, though we may speculate that frustration
with the electronegativity property during the rst trial might
have inuenced his choice. In both cases, Bob was unwilling to
change properties while solving the puzzle.
Three participants had more errors during their second run.
This is consistent with an increased reliance on a type of trial-
and-error strategy. Qualitative data support this, as each of
these participants directly indicated that certain placements of
the blocks were made simply by guessing. For example, Hank
chose the mass property, and explained, It seems I can line
these up, with horizontal lines, and, um, it seems to be working
out through some trial and error. So, by the second trial the
novice students had determined that they needed to do more
trial and error to explore the dierent properties. The increase
in use of trial and error correlates with the level of chemistry
background for each of the participants. This suggests that prior
knowledge has a signicant impact on the types of sensemaking
processes used.21
Impact of Prior Chemistry Knowledge
The qualitative data were compared with respect to two groups:
novice and advanced students (Table 2). The group member-
ships are chosen based on demographic data and general
observations of puzzle solving strategies, as mentioned above.
Keep in mind that the activity is designed to allow novice
participants to infer periodic trends. It is the details of the
strategy, and what is gleaned from the activity, that is
important.
Essentially, the sensemaking process used by novices was the
well-known heuristic of representativeness.13 To choose
where to put the element block, novice participants essentially
compared colors, and assumed that elements with similar
properties were near each other on the periodic table.
Additionally, we observed that the novice participants often
1495
Article
focused on the atomic mass property, because the regular color
patterns associated with changes in mass could be more easily
interpreted; other properties seemed confusing and almost
random to the participants. Annie expressed this when she said,
density looks scary, after she had selected the density
property. She quickly chose another property.
The novice participants recognized that dierent properties
allowed local discrimination of elements, and would randomly
change properties to ll in areas of the puzzle, but would
usually return to the more regular changes observed with the
atomic mass. It was clear that all students rejected a gross trial-
and-error method, but rather looked to increase the likelihood
of a guess being correct. This partly explains the increase in the
number of errors from the rst to the second trials. Note that
the time required decreased in the case of Ashley and Hank,
and increased only slightly with Annie.
Novice participants were not able to inductively construct
the property relationships on the periodic table. It appears that
the novice students were only able to recognize the simple
relationships of mass and atomic number on the periodic table,
and to notice the unique nature of the noble gases and uorine
regarding electronegativity. Hank best described this aspect of
the strategy used by the novices, when he said, [I]f I had more
knowledge I might be able to make use of some of the other
options of shading; he concluded that using mass and atomic
number was the best way to complete the puzzle, given his
prior knowledge. Further, he described properties as being
grouped horizontally (mass), and grouped vertically
(ionization energy), so being able to predict this relationship
would let him choose appropriate properties to solve the puzzle
without as much trial and error.
The sensemaking process of the novice participants showed
some interesting variability. Hank seemed to demonstrate the
most deliberate approach. As mentioned previously, he
explicitly recognized information that he was missing, and the
fact that he needed to rely on some trial and error to complete
the puzzle. On the other hand, Annie had a less deliberate,
more intuitive approach that relied on detailed perceptions of
the color patterns observed. She stated:
It goes orange, orange to almost like a gold color to yellow.
The next are going to be green, the next row. I feel this is
going to be bright green, I guess I was right [as she lls in the
puzzle]. This is all only because of the color scale that is
helping me.
While she used the representativeness heuristic to choose
colors, as well as using trial and error, she seemed to be able to
use more complex information, looking for color patterns
rather than individual color similarities. Further, she was quite
willing to change her approach to solving the problem, and
would work on dierent sections of the periodic table
depending on success levels, and would change between each
section depending on her success. Specically, she would select
mass to help her solve a few elements and then try another
property before going back to mass. She recognized how mass
was categorized by rows and referred to mass as being the
jackpot: a term used when she recognized a local pattern.
Further, Annie had a keen eye for distinguishing the colors, and
used the most specic descriptive names when referring to the
various colors. She recognized the need to be able to
distinguish between elements, and would determine the utility
of a particular property based on the number of dierent colors
observed among the unplaced element blocks. It might be
suggested that Annie had very well developed sensemaking
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200625e | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 14911498
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 2. Example of sensemaking process. Sally rst organized the blocks by row using the mass property, and then selected electronegativity to
determine the column.
processes when it comes to color discrimination, likely related
to her experiences as an art student.
It is important to note that Annie did try to relate chemistry
knowledge to the colors of the elemental blocks. For example,
when describing the trends under mass, she said, Up at the top
of the table where they are kind of a darker blue, it kind of
seems like maybe they are cooler or maybe that means they are
lighter. When describing the trends under density she said, I
think the white in this one means theyre less dense. These
statements occurred during the rst interview, by the second
interview she stopped trying to relate colors, and the chemical
properties, and just identied the general pattern of the colors.
Ashley, on the other hand, worked more methodically,
focusing on one region of the periodic table. In fact, when
solving the most complex puzzle, Ashley began with the
recognition of the high electronegativity of uorine. She stated,
I placed that there because I remember from last time that
only one of them had a high electronegativity [on the puzzle, it
is the only red block when the electronegativity property is
selected]. From there she simply matched the colors of the
nearest neighbors, occasionally choosing dierent properties.
She explained, I am still placing it anywhere there is the same
color, and right now I am on the boiling point property, and
trying all the blue. Ashleys unwillingness to deviate from a
specic location on the periodic table is indicative of what
Tversky and Kahneman13 called insucient adjustment from
an anchor, in which individuals expectation of change are
much less than what is reasonable. This illustrates common
impediments to success with the simplest sensemaking
processes. Ashley would not venture far away from her anchor.
Interestingly, it was possible to complete the puzzle this way,
but resulted in signicantly greater time required to complete
the puzzle.
These examples provide a striking model of the sensemaking
processes observed among participants without much previous
knowledge of the periodic table. One could speculate with
regard to the degree that each of the novices would react to
various forms of scaolding for the activity; clearly, however,
had this activity been intended to teach periodic trends to
beginning students, the most eective scaolding and
preparation would likely be somewhat dierent for each
participant. The observations also bring to light similarities
and dierences in the students sensemaking process. Hank was
able to determine what information would be useful to
complete the activity. Clearly, the variability in the sensemaking
processes observed suggests that the sensemaking (i.e., process
skills?) available to these students is not completely dependent
on prior content knowledge.
1496
Article
Participants with Some Chemistry Prior Knowledge
Similar to the novice participants, the more advanced students
used the property mass as an anchor in completing the
puzzle; however, a better understanding of the organization of
the periodic table allowed a more robust use of this property,
namely, the understanding that the value of the mass wraps
around the table, and allows the student to use other properties
that complement the organization. For example, attending to
the property mass easily allows the elements to be grouped by
row, while other properties, such as electronegativity, allow
better discrimination by column. Students with this knowledge
were able to construct a multistep approach, in which elements
were cataloged based on their mass, and then, by electro-
negativity or ionization energy. The multistep approach can be
viewed as a complex sensemaking process requiring that
participants anticipate the result of one property or another.
This ts the formulating models process skill, in which the
participant exploits a trend she has found in the data.
Interestingly, the two participants who used this method,
Cassandra and Sally, diered signicantly in terms of chemistry
background. From our observations, we can infer that Sally
learned a method of solving the puzzle. Her second interview
was almost two months later, yet when solving the p-block
puzzle activity, she immediately chose mass and said,
What I noticed before was that the color codes were across by
rows, so Im just going to match the row colors and kind of
categorize them in the bottom [a work space below the
periodic table] as I see them in the top [in the periodic table
puzzle].
Once the blocks were categorized, she immediately switched
the property to electronegativity, shown in Figure 2, and was
able to quickly solve about two-thirds of the puzzle. Her initial
trial of the puzzle took much longer, and while she grouped the
elements by color before placing them, she ran through a series
of dierent grouping choices before settling on the mass. This
is perhaps the one example of inquiry learning observed in the
study, where the unguided exploration of the elemental
properties, with the goal of solving a puzzle, led to a greater
understanding of the periodic table.
Evidence from both the students words and actions, and
from the decrease in time required for Sally to complete the
puzzle from one trial to the next, suggests learning took place
on the rst trial of the activity. Examination of Sallys rst trial
shows that she initially considered grouping the unidentied
blocks by color, but experimented with several properties. She
initially used electron anity, and was trying to group the
colors as columns. On the basis of her observations, she
recognized that she must rst group the elements with respect
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200625e | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 14911498
Journal of Chemical Education
to mass, and then use additional properties. This was retained
and used during the second trial, and provides direct evidence
of learning through inquiry. It is interesting to note that it was a
process that Sally learned, and not specic facts or trends about
the periodic table. While details of the periodic properties are
inherent in the process she used, these details were not evident
in her description of her solution. Essentially, she recognized
that some properties categorized elements by row, while other
by column. This is an important recognition, but not what is
often expected of such activities.
A third advanced participant, Bob, did not use such an
approach (Figure 3). This participant provides an interesting
Figure 3. Another example of sensemaking process. Bob was able to
complete this part of the p-block puzzle before he began to use trial-
and-error methods.
example of a student who has diculty with solving the puzzle,
despite demonstrating signicant prior knowledge. While
performing the initial stages of the activity, he demonstrated
a complex mental model of the periodic table, based on the
number of static constituents, referents and relationships, he
used in describing trends on the table. This included
relationships that linked ideas about atomic structure to the
property, and explanation of how the properties changed with
position on the table. However, when doing the more complex
puzzles, Bob did not use a complex combination of properties
(as observed with Sally, and Cassandra), but rather stuck
stubbornly to a single property (in this case, electronegativity).
Initially, electronegativity is an ecient property to select, as it
provides some signicant discrimination among elements, and
allows someone with an understanding of the property to
quickly place a number of elements in the correct locations (as
was observed in this trial); thus, the sensemaking process was
applied. In this instance, Bob is using classication, a
sensemaking process that requires prior knowledge (operating
with certainty). Nonetheless, the electronegativity property
does not discriminate very well between the various metalloids,
and so at some point a second property must be chosen to
allow the elements to be discriminated and placed properly on
the periodic table. Bob was unwilling to do this, even when
reminded by the interviewer that he could select other
properties.
We see this behavior as a common error in the sensemaking
process, similar to what was described by Tversky and
Kahneman13 as the illusion of validity. This common error
occurs when a person is overcondent in the ability of an
observations to predict an outcome: in this example, the ability
of the electronegativity property to predict an elements
location on the periodic table. According to Tversky and
1497
Article
Kahneman,13 The internal consistency of a pattern of inputs is
a major determinant of ones condence in predictions based
on these inputs. This consistency was generated by Bobs
somewhat-generalized knowledge of the relationships between
the property of electronegativity, the elements location on the
periodic table, and the initial success of the placements. Bobs
knowledge of these relationships must not have included details
of the electronegativities of the metalloids, which is not
uncommon for undergraduates. Thus, we see evidence that a
students previous knowledge, correct yet incomplete, had an
impact on the nature of the sensemaking process employed to
solve the problem of the periodic puzzle. This well-known
limitation in the sensemaking process preempts the possibility
that Bob would, through his inquiry, learn that the metalloids
have similar electronegativities, and that perhaps other
properties such as mass or density vary more among this
group of elements: using those properties as well could have
allowed him to complete the puzzle.
The one instance of inquiry learning observed, the example
of Sally noted above, could not be linked to any particular
understanding of periodic trends. Instead this inquiry learning
seems connected to the idea that the element groups (i.e., the
columns) had similar properties, and that dierent relationships
pertain between elements in a column and elements in a row.
Additionally, to solve the puzzle, participants had to recognize
that they must be able to discriminate between the various
elements, which had to have signicantly dierent properties
(or colors). This second item is not really chemistry content
knowledge at all, but rather a puzzle-solving skill (perhaps what
some may call a process skill). In fact, Bobs more advanced
knowledge of the periodic table acted as a hindrance to the
application of this skill. Cassandra used a complex sensemaking
process to solve this puzzle, but she was not really seen to
dene new relationships; rather she was already aware of all the
essential concepts needed to perform this task. This suggests
that there may be a particular background level most amenable
to inquiry learning, a prior knowledge level sweet spot of
sorts, in which inquiry methods would be most eective. Of
course, the as-yet-unknown size of this sweet spot and its
relation to the nature of the activity has important implications
for the use of inquiry-based activities.
A second important implication of these results is that
common heuristics used for decision making and the common
errors associated with those heuristics seem to describe fairly
accurately some sensemaking processes we have observed
students use when they confront an unfamiliar puzzle. This was
true independent of the students prior knowledge, although
the prior knowledge, as evidenced by observation of static
constituents, had a signicant impact on how the sensemaking
process was applied. Knowing possible common errors in
decision-making heuristics is important for instructors wishing
to apply inquiry-based methods because these heuristics may
help dene common trouble spots and suggest eective
scaolding methods.
For the Practitioner
On the basis of our results, we oer this synopsis for instructors
interested in using active learning methods to introduce the
periodic table to novice students.
1. The expectation that students will easily recognize
periodic trends from elemental data seems to be overly
optimistic; rather, our study suggests that even the
organization of the periodic table with respect to mass
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200625e | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 14911498
Journal of Chemical Education Article

and atomic number may require some instructor
scaolding.
2. Students choose dierent strategies for completing an
activity depending on their prior knowledge of the topic
and their available sensemaking processes. Students with
less-developed sensemaking processes need scaolding
specic to these process skills. For instance, in this
periodic table example, some students may need to be
told that properties providing a greater diversity of values
will be more useful in positioning elements than
properties that have values similar to adjacent elements.
3. The ability to use certain process skills does not seem to
be correlated with prior knowledge, and in some cases,
certain prior knowledge may hinder a students ability to
complete an activity successfullystudents may over-
value the utility of certain knowledge in solving a
problem.
4. Instructors should be aware of the common errors in
decision-making heuristics and use them to provide
eective scaolding during active learning.
Finally, by studying the development and application of
students mental models during an open-ended learning
activity, we hope to oer instructors a cognitive foundation
to frame their interactions with students and to provide more
information about eective scaolding during active learning.
(10) Lesh, R.; Hoover, M.; Hole, B.; Kelly, A.; Post, T. Principles for
Developing Thought-Revealing Activities for Students and Teachers.
In Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education;
Kelly, A., Lesh, R., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 2000; pp
591645.
(11) Briggs, M. W. Models and Modeling as a Theory of Learning. In
Theoretical Frameworks for Research in Chemistry/Science Education;
Orgill, M. K., Bodner, G. M., Eds.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River,
NJ, 2007; Chapter 4.
(12) Briggs, M .W.; Long, G. R.; Owens, K. Qualitative Assessment
of Inquiry-Based Teaching Methods. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (8),
10341040.
(13) Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. Science 1974, 185, 11241131.
(14) Johnson-Laird, P. N. Cognition 1994, 50, 189209.
(15) Pirolli, P.; Card, S. Psychol. Rev. 1999, 106 (4), 643675.
(16) Windschitl, M. What Is Inquiry? A Framework for Thinking
about Authentic Scientic Practice in the Classroom. In Science as
Inquiry in the Secondary Setting; Luft, J., Bell, R., Gess-Newsome, J.,
Eds.; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, 2008.
(17) Padilla, M. Research MattersTo the Science Teacher: The
Science Process Skills (No. 9004, 1990). http://www.narst.org/
publications/research/skill.cfm (accessed Sept 2012).
(18) Windschitl, M.; Buttemer, H. Am. Biol. Teach. 2000, 62 (5),
34650.
(19) Kind, V.; Taber, K. S. Science: Teaching School Subjects 1119;
Routledge: London, 2005.
(20) Millar, R. Doing Science: Images of Science in Science Education;
The Falmer Press: London, 1989.

(21) Nelson, R. R. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 2008, 67, 7889.

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: GRLong@iup.edu.
Notes
The authors declare no competing nancial interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Brian Reid for permission to use images
of the periodic table puzzle, and the anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments. Funding for this research project has
been provided by the National Science Foundation, Depart-
ment of Undergraduate Education, Course Curriculum and
Laboratory Improvement: 0736836.

REFERENCES
(1) Moore, J. W. Turning the (Periodic) Tables. J. Chem. Educ. 2003,
80 (8), 847.
(2) Mazurs, E. G. Graphic Representations of the Periodic System
During One Hundred Years; University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa,
AL, 1974.
(3) Scerri, E. R. The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Signicance,
Oxford University Press: New York, 2007.
(4) Bruck, L. B.; Bretz, S. L.; Towns, M. H. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2008,
38 (1), 5258.
(5) Criswell, B. Mistake of Having Students Be Mendeleev for Just a
Day. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (7), 11401144.
(6) Reid, B. 1999. http://www.dartmouth.edu/chemlab/info/
resources/ptable/Periodic.html (accessed Sept 2012).
(7) Oliver-Hoyo, M.; Allen, D.; Anderson, M. J. Coll. Sci. Teach.
2004, 33 (6), 2024.
(8) Johnson-Laird, P. N. Mental Models. In Foundations of Cognitive
Science; Posner, M. I., Ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1989; pp 469
499.
(9) diSessa, A. A. A History of Conceptual Change Research:
Threads and Fault Lines. In Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences; Sawyer, K., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
U.K., 2006.

1498 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200625e | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 14911498