European Journal of Engineering Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ceee20

Learning electrochemistry through scientific

inquiry. Conceptual modelling as learning
objective and as scaffold

Mariana Orozco, Mieke Boon & Arturo Susarrey Arce

To cite this article: Mariana Orozco, Mieke Boon & Arturo Susarrey Arce (2023) Learning
electrochemistry through scientific inquiry. Conceptual modelling as learning objective
and as scaffold, European Journal of Engineering Education, 48:1, 180-196, DOI:
10.1080/03043797.2022.2047894

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2047894

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 09 Mar 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2847

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceee20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 48, NO. 1, 180–196
https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2047894

Learning electrochemistry through scientific inquiry. Conceptual

modelling as learning objective and as scaffold
Mariana Orozco, Mieke Boon and Arturo Susarrey Arce
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper reports on the design of an innovative Electrochemistry course, Received 9 July 2021
part of a Chemical Science Engineering programme. Teachers have Accepted 25 February 2022
observed that their students’ understanding of electrochemical concepts
KEYWORDS
and phenomena is insufficient to attempt connections to further Electrochemistry;
concepts, and to generate new knowledge in scientific problem-solving. engineering sciences
A new course was required aiming to contribute to students’ building education; mixed general-
mastery of concepts and deep insight into phenomena, both in and infusion approach to
beyond the learning context. The course was designed tapping on ideas thinking teaching;
of inquiry-based learning and involving of conceptual modelling as a conceptual modelling;
scaffold to learning. This pedagogical intervention departs from the scaffolding; inquiry-based
consideration that conceptual modelling is an essential reasoning ability learning in higher education;
of (engineering) scientists and, consistently, it constitutes a key learning intervention study
objective. Concurrent with the implementation of this course, an
accompanying empirical investigation was set up to grasp how students
learn electrochemistry with this novel pedagogical approach, and
whether (and to what extent) there is any observable effect on the
learning and transfer of electrochemical concepts. Both the instructional
design of the course and the educational research design integrate
considerations from Chemical Science, Philosophy of Science in Practice,
and Education Sciences. The implications for engineering education and
for educational research are discussed.

Introduction to this paper

Chemical Science Engineering (CSE) graduates are expected to become experts in topics relevant to
the future of our society. In particular, Electrochemistry is an important scientific and practical
domain within CSE, as it offers a wide range of possibilities to contribute to the development of
new (sustainable) processes; examples are water electrolysis to produce hydrogen for its use as a
renewable and sustainable fuel, and the development of a battery for more efficient storage of elec-
trical energy (Fuller and Harb 2018). Therefore, teaching electrochemistry in CSE programmes should
aim at students’ meeting these high expectations.
However, students seem to be more concerned with ‘the mathematics of getting a sufficient grade at
the end of a module, than with efforts to develop into academically thinking professionals’.1 Such mindset
plausibly represents a contributing factor for a generalised surface approach to learning. Teachers in
higher bachelors’ and masters’ levels have often observed that students cannot rely on sufficient under-
standing of electrochemical concepts and phenomena. A growing mastery of concepts is necessary

CONTACT Mariana Orozco [email protected]

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 181

(Orozco 2022, forthcoming) when new topics are offered, so that students can revisit and connect more
familiar electrochemical concepts to more advanced thermodynamical concepts; e.g. connecting ‘cell
potential’ to ‘Gibbs free energy’ both conceptually and through the use the Nersts equation (Fuller and
Harb 2018). Also, deep insight into electrochemical phenomena is necessary when students are con-
fronted with scientific problem-solving (such as chemical reactor design), where they have to generate
new knowledge, e.g. through adaptive transfer (Bransford and Schwartz 1999).
If engineering students are expected to approach their learning differently, they have to be
shown how this is possible and be supported in developing advanced thinking skills. In particular,
if students are expected to achieve deep insight into electrochemical phenomena and a high
level of mastery of electrochemical concepts, both in and beyond the learning context, then a
novel instructional design is required that can effectively contribute to reaching such goals. In
response to these needs, a team of teachers and educational researchers designed a new course
(part of a broader intervention) which taps on ideas of inquiry-based learning (e.g. Pedaste et al.
2015), that approaches the teaching of thinking in an explicit and content-related fashion (Ennis
1989), and that is guided by the use of conceptual modelling as a scaffold to learning.
The broader pedagogical intervention is composed of various elements that are integrated into a
mixed general-infusion approach to teaching (Ennis 1989). This intervention departs from the con-
sideration that conceptual modelling is an essential reasoning ability of (engineering) scientists
(Boon 2020; Boon and Knuuttila 2009) and, consistently, it constitutes a key learning objective of
this course. When used as a scaffold to learning (e.g. Ippolito 2019), conceptual modelling aims to
enhance students’ understanding of natural phenomena by confronting students with strategies
for conducting scientific research.
The implementation of this course is accompanied by empirical educational research aiming
to evaluate the effectiveness of this novel approach, i.e. whether (and to what extent) there is any
observable effect on both the learning and the transfer of electrochemical concepts. Further-
more, this research addresses a more fundamental question of how students learn electrochem-
istry during the period of this intervention, i.e. how students’ reasoning progresses during the
learning process. Both the instructional design of the course and the educational research
design integrate considerations from Chemical Science, Philosophy of Science in Practice, and
Education Sciences.
This paper is further organised into four sections. The first section regards the relevance of elec-
trochemistry in engineering science education. The second section focuses on the theoretical frame-
work, thus introducing the basis of the ongoing action research project. Subsequently, section three
presents the project itself. Finally, the fourth section revisits the connections between our theoretical
framework and our action research, next discusses methodological threats and, eventually, proposes
plausible implications.

Electrochemistry and engineering science education

Electrochemistry belongs to the broader equilibrium thermodynamics. It is concerned with the
chemistry and physics of systems in which chemical reactions can produce an electrical current
or, conversely, an external electrical potential is applied to provoke the reaction of species. Not
only are electrochemical concepts used to understand naturally occurring phenomena, such as cor-
rosion, but they also have numerous applications, such as electroanalytical techniques, supercon-
ductors, electrodeposition, and industrial electrowinning.
In particular, knowledge of electrochemistry is crucial to understand, re-design, or design and
develop more sustainable processes and materials for energy conversion and storage; for
example: batteries, fuel cells and electrolysis for hydrogen production.
From chemical and electronics manufacturing, to hybrid vehicles, energy storage, and beyond, electrochemical
engineering touches many industries—any many lives—every day. As energy conservation becomes of central
182 M. OROZCO ET AL.

importance, so too does the science that helps us reduce consumption, reduce waste, and lessen our impact on
the planet. (Fuller and Harb 2018, front)

The preceding quote leaves no doubt on the relevance of electrochemical engineering; from this
is follows that engineering science education has an important role to play. We advocate that a con-
ducive approach consists in integrating (or re-integrating) theoretical concepts to empirical work; in
order to provide both critical disciplinary knowledge and scientific thinking skills that ultimately find
applications in real-world contexts.

Framework
The present theoretical framework is constructed on four main topics: (i) a perspective on learning
and transfer of knowledge, (ii) reflective learning, (iii) scientific inquiry as a learning approach, and
(iv) conceptual modelling.

Learning and transfer

There are different metaphors for learning that condense distinctive conceptions of learning, and the
implications such conceptions have for educational practice (Derry 2017) (e.g. how we approach
learning, teaching and assessment). The acquisition and the construction metaphors have first
been identified (Tynjälä 2008), while the mastery metaphor has been more recently proposed
(Taylor, Noorloos, and Bakker 2017). At this point, a comparative exposition of these metaphors
would lead us away from our focus, but we refer the reader to the cited works.
We propose that the mastery metaphor is the most conducive to our action research goals,
because it conceives learning predominantly in terms of normative social reasoning activity. Accord-
ing to this perspective, learning is regarded as ‘acquisition of mastery over socio-cognitive capacities,
as ratified in (linguistic) practice‘ (Taylor, Noorloos, and Bakker 2017, 780). This perspective is useful,
furthermore, to propose what it means to ‘understand’ a concept and how such understanding
further develops (Orozco 2022, forthcoming). Such view aligns with the well-known emphasis on
a deep approach to qualitative learning (Case and Gunstone 2003; Lindblom-Ylänne, Parpala, and
Postareff 2019; Marton and Säljö 1976, 1997), as opposed to surface learning.
No less controversial and rich, is the debate on what constitutes ‘the transfer of knowledge’.
Indeed, there are several coexisting perspectives on transfer that differ in their assumptions
about: what is exactly transferred (Salomon and Perkins 1989), what triggers transfer and how it
develops (Lobato 2012; Salomon and Perkins 1989), what distinguishes mere learning from transfer
(Salomon and Perkins 1989), what distinguishes mere application from adaptive and generative use
of knowledge (Bransford and Schwartz 1999; Eraut 1985), at what point transfer turns overzealous
(Schwartz, Chase, and Bransford 2012), and what can be taken to be a misconception in prior knowl-
edge (Lobato 2006; Lobato et al. 2015). The answers we give to these questions have implications on
how we teach to transfer (Engle et al. 2012) and assess transfer (Schwartz, Bransford, and Sears 2005),
and on our empirical research methods concerning transfer (Lobato 2008).
We use the term ‘transfer of knowledge’ for practical reasons, but we do not subscribe to its con-
notations, e.g. a reification of knowledge as a good that is carried over from an initial context of
learning to a target context of application (Lobato 2006; Perkins and Salomon 2012). Instead, we
propose that it is appropriate to conceive transfer as the generalisation of concepts to more encom-
passing contexts (Engle et al. 2012), which is consistent with a learner-centred perspective and its
research methodology (Lobato 2012).
Finally, several authors use the broad idea of ‘making connections’ to point out that much transfer
begins during learning, e.g. by creating expectations from the start (Blanchard, Thacker, and Pichai
2013), by deliberately providing forward-reaching cues at any stage (Salomon and Perkins 1989), or
by explicitly discussing known and plausible uses of concepts and principles on reflection, thus
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 183

preventing mere acquisition of inert knowledge (e.g. Marzano and al 1988). Eventually, this making
connections renders knowledge more meaningful for the students (Orozco, Gijbels, and Timmerman
2020).

Reflective learning
The kind of learning we aim for, as described in the previous paragraphs, strongly connects to the
idea of ‘reflective learning’. The term ‘reflective approach’ to learning (Lindblom-Ylänne, Parpala, and
Postareff 2019) refers to the well-known concept of ‘deep approach’ to studying (Marton and Säljö
1976, 1997), originally called ‘deep processing’. The categories deep and surface are widely accepted
to typify qualitative differences in approaches to learning, be it in terms of the referential aspect of
students’ experiences (i.e. whether the students search for meaning or not), which remains inextric-
ably mixed with the organisational aspect (i.e. whether the informational content is organised in a
holistic or an atomistic way) (Marton and Säljö 1997).
Marton and Säljö’s (1976) phenomenographic work examined strategies of learning in higher
education, as well as the outcomes of such learning. These outcomes were investigated in terms
of what is understood and remembered, i.e. with emphasis on what is learned rather than how
much. The different levels of outcomes found contain (a) different conceptions of the content of
the very task, and (b) correspond to differences in processing.
Our studies have been concerned with meaningful learning in the true sense of this term. The primary aim was
to explore qualitative differences in what is learned and to describe the functional differences in the process of
learning which give rise to the qualitative differences in outcome. […] The most important conclusion […] is that
learning should be described in terms of its content. A highly significant aspect of learning is, in our opinion, the
variation in what is learned, i.e. the diversity of ways in which the same phenomenon, concept or principle is
apprehended by different students. By gaining knowledge about how students comprehend, for instance,
various scientific principles and ideas, we should obtain information which would undoubtedly prove fruitful
for teaching. (Marton and Säljö 1976, 10)

Indeed, it appears crucial to describe the outcome of the learning in terms of the conceptions of
the phenomena learned about, which calls for knowing what conceptions of the phenomena (and
the concepts included therein) the students already hold, as immediate implication for teaching
(Marton and Säljö 1997). Moreover, ‘it is exactly in transitions between preconceived ideas of the
phenomena and an improved understanding of those phenomena, where the most important
form of learning in higher education is to be found’ (Marton and Säljö 1997, 57).
Lindblom-Ylänne and colleagues (2019) further examined the nature of the surface approach to
learning in higher education and explored explanatory factors for students’ use of such approach.
The authors suggest that several factors contribute to its use, e.g. extent of organised studying,
motivation to study, interest, perception of challenge, and self-efficacy beliefs. Furthermore, it is
suggested that both students’ unreflective studying and their strong perception of a fragmented
knowledge base are at the core of the surface approach (Lindblom-Ylänne, Parpala, and Postareff
2019). It is important to consider the implications of these conclusions in (our) educational practice
and action research. In the discussion section, we also connect with other researchers’ work on the
factors for students’ approach, and the strategies to enhance mastery and deep learning in the
context of Electrochemistry (De Jong and Treagust 2002; Rahayu, Treagust, and Chandrasegaran
2021; Schmidt, Marohn, and Harrison 2007; Treagust, Mthembu, and Chandrasegaran 2014).

Scientific inquiry as learning approach and object of learning

Inquiry-based learning
Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a methodology that aims to enhance learning through a knowledge
construction process (Santana-Vega, Suarez-Perdomo, and Feliciano-Garcia 2020). It is widely
accepted that inquiry experiences can provide valuable opportunities for students to develop a
184 M. OROZCO ET AL.

higher level of understanding of both science content and scientific practices (Edelson, Gordin, and
Pea 1999).
IBL is usually organised into inquiry phases that together form an inquiry cycle, although many
variations on this cycle are found (Pedaste et al. 2015). In most cases, five phases can be distin-
guished, i.e.: (i) orientation, (ii) conceptualisation, (iii) investigation, (iv) conclusion and (v)
discussion. The latter includes communication and reflection, and is expected to be present at
every point during IBL (Pedaste et al. 2015).
Prior research has consistently shown that IBL can be more effective than instructional
approaches that tend to be more expository (i.e. more instructor-centred than student-centred),
as long as students are supported adequately (Lazonder and Harmsen 2016). Yet it is not straightfor-
ward to state what type of guidance is adequate, and for whom. Meta-analyses have shown that the
type of guidance does not moderate the overall effects, but the effects on particular learning out-
comes present considerable variation (Lazonder and Harmsen 2016).
Compared to more traditional learning models, IBL presents both advantages and disadvantages
that should not be overlooked, if we aim to meet teachers and students’ expectations (Khalaf and Zin
2018). More than just focusing on students’ performance and learning outcomes, Khalaf and Zin
(2018) emphasise that various pedagogical aspects should be considered concurrently. The
implementation of IBL presents significant challenges (Edelson, Gordin, and Pea 1999): (a) higher
level of student motivation required, (b) accessibility of investigation techniques, (c) opportunities
to develop and readily engage scientific understanding, (d) planning and organisation of activities
and resources, (e) practical constraints of the learning environment. Strategies proposed in the lit-
erature for addressing such challenges, still need to be adapted to the particular learning
environment.
Madhuri and colleagues (2012) provide an example of an inquiry-based approach in engineering
education. They redesigned a chemistry course to focus on: the students’ ability to execute an exper-
iment, design new experiments, and connect the practical utility of the course module to real-life
problems. This intervention attempts to overcome the problem that ‘students can be successful
in their laboratory class even with little understanding of what they are actually doing’ (Madhuri,
Kantamreddi, and Prakash Goteti 2012, 118).
All in all, considering the aforementioned issues during the instructional design and the
implementation, IBL can offer a space for the creation of knowledge that is stimulated by the
inquiry process (Santana-Vega, Suarez-Perdomo, and Feliciano-Garcia 2020), thus favouring mean-
ingful learning.

Learning through and about scientific inquiry

Concurrently to its use as a learning approach, the scientific inquiry needs to be the object of learn-
ing as well. Too often, books and lectures present scientific-technological models to students, that
have been deprived of inside knowledge of the process of construction of such models (Knuuttila
and Boon 2011). By attending to the creative process of knowledge generation, students will
develop an insight into the epistemology of science in practice. They will make sense of what
they see or measure during their empirical work in the lab (and even what they cannot see), thus
getting the feeling that they really grasp what is going on. Students will grow intellectually
through the construction and reconstruction of conceptual models. Indeed, modelling has been
recognised as a core practice in science and as a central part of scientific literacy (Schwarz et al.
2009); in particular, scientific modelling of technological systems is central to the engineering
sciences (Boon 2020).
IBL plays a role in such intellectual growth, as it helps to convey the idea that theory is not necess-
arily a ‘foundation’ that has to comes first per se. In this way, it becomes possible to question
assumptions underlying expressions such as ‘putting theory into practice’, ‘applying theory’ or ‘confi-
rming theory in the lab’ (Orozco, Gijbels, and Timmerman 2020).
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 185

IBL then allows us to modify the traditional sequence of learning activities, such that the students’
inquiry and discovery come first, and it is followed by integration to conceptual knowledge (Orozco,
Gijbels, and Timmerman 2019). The conceptual modelling approach (Boon and Knuuttila 2009;
Knuuttila and Boon 2011) guides the students in performing such integration. Yet it remains of
utmost importance to develop a thoughtful learning progression for scientific modelling, if we
aim to make modelling accessible and meaningful for the students (Schwarz et al. 2009).
Schwarz and colleagues (2009) propose a learning progression for scientific modelling based on
the interaction of elements of practice and metamodelling knowledge. The elements of practice
refer to activities such as constructing, using, evaluating, and revising; while the metamodelling
knowledge (which guides and motivates practice) includes an understanding of the nature and pur-
poses of models, along with consideration of criteria for evaluating and revising the models. Within
this framework, various levels of progress can be identified (Schwarz et al. 2009): four levels along the
generative dimension (i.e. scientific models as tools for predicting and explaining), and four levels
along the understanding dimension (acknowledging that models change as understanding
improves). There is evidence to suggest that sufficient support to students is a condition for them
to make progress: ‘[…] we found that with sufficient support, students were able to revise their
models and explain how their models were improved from their earlier versions, referring to increas-
ingly sophisticated criteria’ (Schwarz et al. 2009, 651)

Conceptual models: their elements and construction

A conceptual model can be considered an ‘epistemic tool’, i.e. a tool for thinking that allows us to
understand and to generate new knowledge (Boon and Knuuttila 2009; Knuuttila and Boon 2011).
The action of modelling, in its turn, involves a ‘way of reasoning’, i.e. an important academic skill
that we wish to promote as a learning objective in engineering science education.
The methodology proposed for constructing scientific models of phenomena (either physical or
physical-technological) is consistent with the hypothetical-deductive methodology of inquiry (Boon
2020). Such methodology encompasses both the modelling of physical-technological phenomena in
a specific context, and the modelling of technological artefacts that produce specific phenomena.
There are several aspects that a scientific model of a phenomenon needs to include, such as: an
identification of the problem context and the phenomena of interest, an inventory of the relevant
properties and variables involved, a distinction between measurable and not measurable variables
(with current technology), the associated instruments of measure (if any), and the theoretical and
empirical connections between the various elements of the model (either known or hypothesised).
The justification of the model is partially given by how it is built, i.e. by the coherent integration of
the elements into a whole (Boon and Knuuttila 2009; Knuuttila and Boon 2011).

Action research in engineering science education

This section first introduces action research (its concept, principles, and examples of use in engineering
education). Next, we describe the main aspects of the context (and its disciplinary content) in which
the present educational research is embedded. Further, we enter the elaboration of the proper
action research; here, the ‘action part’ focuses on the instructional design of the pedagogical interven-
tion, while the ‘research part’ focuses on the design of the accompanying phenomenological research.

Introduction to action research

Action research is ‘a powerful tool for change and improvement at the local level’ (Cohen, Manion,
and Morrison 2011, 344). In education, participatory action research is a way in which teachers
research their own courses, be it individually or collaboratively with other teachers and/or research-
ers. Although there are several schools of action research, they have in common their desire for the
186 M. OROZCO ET AL.

Table 1. Key principles of action research present in the current study.

Action research principles Current study
Improving education by changing it Intervention design and implementation
Participatory: improvement of the own practices in the first Teachers as initiators and further involved in various aspects of
place the action research
Self-reflective spiral: planning, acting, observing, reflecting Built in the research design and assisted by the researchers
Collaboration Teachers-researcher close collaboration
Theorising, being inquisitive, coming to understand Plausible explanations will be discussed after evidence-based
relationships conclusions are drawn
Own practices put to the test, gathering compelling Built in the research design and assisted by the researchers
evidence
Keeping records, also collecting, and analysing own Keeping a personal journal is recommended to the teachers
judgements, reactions, and impressions involved
Reasoned justification: a developed, tested and critically Evidential trail constructed throughout the project, based on the
examined rationale for what we are doing gathered evidence and critical reflection

advancement of educational practice, ‘based on a rigorous evidential trail of data and research’
(Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011, 344).
Action research bridges the gap between educational research and practice by combining diag-
nosis, action and reflection, and by focussing on issues that have been identified by the very prac-
titioners (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011). In our project, teaching practitioners and educational
researchers work alongside in the area of teaching methods (i.e. in order to introduce a novel course,
in which traditional teaching methods are replaced by a scaffolded discovery method). Table 1 high-
lights some key principles of action research (Kemmis and McTaggart 1992) and indicates how such
principles are present in our particular study, i.e. to design, implement, execute, monitor and under-
stand the effects of the pedagogical intervention.
There are many published examples of action research in education, although only few of them in
the context of engineering education. One example pertains to the design and use of learning mini-
projects in a chemistry laboratory for engineering, in order to make the learning activities in the
classroom resemble the activities in real companies (Cancela et al. 2016). Another example concerns
the development of chemical engineering course methods, using systematically extracted data from
student feedback and teacher reflection over a period of several years, and with the aim of improving
the quality of teaching (Virkki-Hatakka, Tuunila, and Nurkka 2013).

The context of this study

The present action research is embedded in a bachelor’s programme that focuses on the technologi-
cal application of chemistry. Students will expectedly become professionals able to contribute to
improving and developing processes and materials, while using disciplinary knowledge (along
with scientific thinking skills) as their starting point.
This three-year programme is organised into 12 modules that combine a broad range of compul-
sory and elective subjects. These include not only the more foundational topics (such as chemistry,
material science, thermodynamics, transport phenomena and quantum chemistry), but also the
more technological topics (such as industrial processes and process equipment design). Strategies
such as project-based assignments and the bachelor thesis aim at the integration of the various sub-
jects (either during the initial learning or in retrospect). The main context of our study is in Module 4
(and in particular the Electrochemistry course), hosting both the intervention and most educational
research activities. Also, Module 5 (the courses in Kinetics and in Industrial Chemical Processes) will
host research activities related to the question on transfer of knowledge.

The content in this study

Part of Module 4 of the bachelor’s programme is concerned with equilibrium thermodynamics. This
area is interested in, e.g. (a) describing and quantifying changes in the state of a substance as a result
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 187

of phase transitions, mixing, or chemical reactions, (b) predicting whether a process will run spon-
taneously under certain conditions, and (c) determining the composition and state conditions of a
mixture in equilibrium. This knowledge is the foundation for the design of nearly all industrial pro-
cesses, i.e. its technology, operation, and products.
Next to the lectures on electrochemistry theory, a lab course is designed and conducted. Five
practicums are planned, to be performed by small groups of students (combining individual and
group tasks); these are: (1) potentiometric meter, (2) electrochemical cell, (3) solubility, (4) acid–
base potentiometric titration, (5) voltammetry. In the present study, we are particularly interested
in in the second and fifth practicums. We selected the second topic, electrochemical cell, for
being both particularly challenging for the students (in terms of difficulty) and particularly relevant
(in terms of eventual applications, as explained before). We selected the fifth topic, voltammetry,
because it somehow integrates and extends all other topics.

Instructional design of the intervention

Mixed infusion-general teaching of thinking
We propose that much of what is known about critical thinking can be used to understand, promote,
and evaluate scientific thinking as well. Just as critical thinking has a heavily loaded logical dimen-
sion, next to its criterial and pragmatic dimensions (Ennis 1962), scientific-technological conceptual
modelling can be regarded as a way of reasoning (Boon 2020). In this sense, conclusions about the
subject specificity of critical thinking and their pedagogical implications (Ennis 1989) can be
extended to the teaching of scientific reasoning.
In line with Ennis’ views (1989), the most appropriate approach to teaching scientific reasoning
appears to be a mix of a ‘general approach’ and an ‘infusion approach’. This means teaching prin-
ciples of conceptual modelling both in a context-free fashion (the general approach) and connected
to the particular domain of interest, in this case electrochemistry (the infusion approach). A further
characteristic of the infusion approach is that it offers the principles of conceptual modelling in an
explicit way (thus providing a vocabulary, and the tools for communication and reflection). We add
that a mere combination of approaches will not be conducive, and that the two approaches need to
be integrated.

Conceptual modelling as a learning objective and as a scaffold for learning and transfer
In this project, the conceptual modelling skill is regarded as a learning objective, while the modelling
activity plays the role of a scaffold in engineering science education. As explained before, the action
of modelling involves a scientific way of reasoning and, therefore, it represents a desired academic
skill and an intended learning objective of the proposed pedagogical intervention.
Furthermore, the process of modelling uses the B&K method (Boon and Knuuttila 2009; Knuuttila
and Boon 2011) as a scaffold for the learning and persistent use of conceptual modelling. In edu-
cational sciences, the term ‘scaffold’ refers to an educational or instructional strategy (or even an
artefact) intended to promote a desirable outcome (e.g. the effective development of a group of
skills). Originally, a ‘scaffold’ is deliberately temporary and meant to fade over time (Newstetter
2005; van Merriënboer 2013). However, our use of ‘scaffold’ particularly refers to a ‘cognitive
scaffold’ (Ippolito 2019) and presupposes its persistence over time. Examples of such a cognitive
scaffold are ‘reflection prompts’(Davis and Linn 2000), intended to assist students in becoming,
and remaining, autonomous integrators of their knowledge. We take a scaffold to be more than
just a procedure that is demonstrated by an instructor and that students need to internalise, so
that it becomes automated or and the instructor’s support becomes superfluous. The persistent
and effective use of the scaffold (either deliberately or unconsciously) is an indicator of the attained
level of cognitive skill development.
In particular, the B&K method (Boon and Knuuttila 2009; Knuuttila and Boon 2011) is a scaffold
that guides reasoning in terms of the aspects that need to be collected and related in the modelling
188 M. OROZCO ET AL.

processes; this requires critical thinking of what is relevant (or not) for understanding the modelled
phenomenon, in a specific problem-context and for an intended epistemic purpose.

The proper intervention

The proper intervention consists mainly of a new electrochemistry course (focused on the lab prac-
ticums and tapping on IBL methodology). This course is supported by a preliminary lecture on con-
ceptual modelling for the students, and a workshop on conceptual modelling for learning assistants
(and interested teachers). Two theoretical lectures per lab practicum complete the overall interven-
tion, i.e. an introductory lecture and a recapitulation lecture. Table 2 summarises the overall
sequence.
The students are expected to achieve a high level of understanding of electrochemistry, through
scientific thinking and through the integration of empirical observations and theoretical knowledge.
The assessment of students’ learning (process and product aspects) has at least three purposes, i.e.
formative, evaluative, collecting evidence. Various assessment instruments will be involved in our
investigation, i.e. lab journals (including reflection reports), intermediate and final practicum
reports, informal quizzes, and a final exam. These documents will be appraised in the light of the
learning objectives, the levels of progress for scientific modelling (Schwarz et al. 2009), and triangu-
lated with accounts of the subjects’ experiences.

The new electrochemistry course: focus on the practicums. The electrochemistry lab course is
designed according to IBL principles. It is centred on the use of conceptual modelling to guide
the scientific reasoning (including the integration of the students’ empirical observations to the
theory of electrochemistry) and is assisted by the B&K method as a scaffold for developing the mod-
elling skills. There are several practicums to be performed, each with specific aims and learning
objectives, as explained before.
The five practicums composing this course (each with specific aims and learning objectives) are
conducted by groups of students (16 groups, 3 students each), while alternating individual and col-
laborative tasks. Each practicum involves understanding a particular electrochemical phenomenon
(or even tackling a particular scientific electrochemical problem). The learning process is facilitated
by learning assistants (LA), whose main task is to guide the students’ reasoning in the process of
modelling at several stages before and after the actual empirical work. Also, both the students’ learn-
ing process and the assistants’ task are facilitated by a semi structured lab journal. This lab journal,
furthermore, constitutes an important instrument for the assessment of the learning process, while it

Table 2. Overall sequence of the intervention.

ID Section Comment
Introduction: Overall aims & learning objectives For students
Workshop on conceptual modelling For learning assistants (and interested
teachers)
Interactive lecture: Introduction to conceptual modelling For students
Interactive lecture: Activating theoretical concepts For students, before each practicum
1 Practicum: Potentiometric meter Sequence shown in Table 3
2 Practicum: Electrochemical cell Sequence shown in Table 3
Intervision meeting For learning assistants (and interested
teachers)
3 Practicum: Solubility Sequence shown in Table 3
4 Practicum: Acid-base reactions & electricity Sequence shown in Table 3
Feedback on groups’ conceptual models on submission of lab reports For students, after each practicum
Interactive lecture: Anchoring connections & drawing new ones For students, after each practicum
5 Practicum: Voltammetry Sequence shown in Table 3
Feedback on groups’ conceptual model on submission of the final lab For students, formative closure
report
Exam & Composition of process evaluation Summative assessment
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 189

Table 3. Sequence of learning activities of per practicum (summary).

ID Activity By whom
a Brief theoretical introduction Lecturer
b Preparing the practicum + C.Model0 Students groups
c Meeting the LA before the practicum Students groups + LA
d Conducting the practicum Individual students
e Processing and interpreting the data + C.Model1 Students groups
f Meeting the LA Students groups + LA
g Short recap of previous week Lecturer
h Theoretical self-instruction Students (indiv. or in group)
i Reporting + C.Model2 Students groups
j Feedback on reports & C.Model2 to all S Practicum teacher
Note: C.Modeli denotes the various versions of the conceptual model.

will also be used as a key data collection instrument for our educational research. Table 3 presents
the sequence of learning activities per practicum.
For the present study, we selected the second and fifth practicums for being particularly challen-
ging and integrative (thus providing richer educational research data), while the instructions and
approach is nearly the same for all practicums. The second practicum concerns an electrochemical
cell; the aim is to determine the electromotive force (EMF) and evaluate whether (and if so, how)
cation concentration affects EMF after electrochemical cell assembly. The learning purpose is to
build knowledge on electrochemical cell assembly and determine the different phenomena occur-
ring in the cell. After this practicum, the student should explain the working principle of an electro-
chemical cell (in particular, the relationship between a chemical reaction and electricity) by
integrating the learning from their lab experience (i.e. including the analysis of the empirical
findings) to (prior) conceptual knowledge on electrochemical electrodes, electrochemical reactions
(e.g. species, stoichiometry, equilibrium, reversibility), cell potentials, EMF, and ion diffusion.
Further, we focus on the fifth and last practicum, which has both a formative function (i.e. to inte-
grate and extend the learning from the previous practicums) and an evaluative function (i.e. to assess
the achievement of the learning objectives by the student groups). In other terms, this final project
aims to challenge the students and use conceptual modelling skills in the project assignment.
Additional concepts will be used, such as cyclic voltammetry, to generate insights into the
different identified phenomena. After the practicum, the student should know how to integrate
the concepts from previous experiments with the voltammetry method.

Lecture on electrochemistry. The students are assumed to have some prior knowledge, such as: fun-
damentals of chemistry and of thermodynamics. Learning objectives for the integrated course have
been formulated as a guide for learning, teaching and assessment.
Before each practicum, an introductory lecture will present the main aspects of the particular
topic (Fuller and Harb 2018), without disclosing what the students are supposed to discover by
themselves, in line with the principles of IBL (Pedaste et al. 2015) and the learning by scientific dis-
covery (Schwarz et al. 2009).
After each practicum’s sequence of activities, a recapitulation lecture will focus on anchoring con-
nections (e.g. between empirical observations and theoretical concepts) made by the students
groups during the modelling (Knuuttila and Boon 2011; Schwarz et al. 2009). Also, new connections
to further applications may be discussed with a view on transfer of meaningful knowledge (Marzano
and al 1988; Orozco, Gijbels, and Timmerman 2020).

Lecture on conceptual modelling. The students are expected to have preconceptions about scien-
tific-technological knowledge (along with its generation, validation, and stability) that may not
always be conducive to developing academic thinking. Learning objectives for this part of the inter-
vention have been formulated.
190 M. OROZCO ET AL.

This lecture first aims to create awareness about conducive and non-conducive epistemological
preconceptions, to then introduce the principles of conceptual modelling (Boon and Knuuttila 2009;
Knuuttila and Boon 2011). The lecture is accompanied by a handout for the students’ reference.
Providing this lecture on conceptual modelling to students in quite general terms (thus not
centred on any particular subject matter) responds to a ‘general approach’ to teaching scientific
reasoning (Ennis 1989). It is not expected that the students will master the modelling skills just
after this lecture. Rather, this lecture smoothly integrates with the practicums that use the concep-
tual modelling method and the B&K scaffold (Boon and Knuuttila 2009; Knuuttila and Boon 2011) in
relation to electrochemical concepts and phenomena. These practicums respond to the ‘infusion
approach’ to teaching reasoning (Ennis 1989). The overall approach is an example of a thoroughly
integrated mixed approach to teaching.

Training the learning assistants. A two-session workshop is given to the learning assistants for
them to start becoming acquainted with the conceptual modelling method. Furthermore, the LAs
need to understand what is expected from them at the time of assisting the students groups. There-
fore, the workshop first introduces the overall idea and principles, and continues with a more
detailed discussion of handouts and manuals that have been written for this course. A third
session with the LAs (an ‘intervision’ meeting) takes place later during the semester, to collect
their experiences with the students, to discuss any issues and to steer the intervention if necessary.
The LAs are advanced students in chemical engineering who are particularly interested in the
topic of conceptual modelling, and in guiding students in their learning process. These LAs have
already received training to assist students in higher education (e.g. introduction to learning and
motivation theories, giving qualitative feedback, and dealing with conflicts). Their participation in
the present action research project further contributes to their professional development.

Phenomenological research design

The selected research methodology is phenomenological, because we are interested in the subjects’
experiences as much as in accurate records of their performances. This is in line with our frameworks
about learning (Derry 2017; Taylor, Noorloos, and Bakker 2017) and transfer (Engle et al. 2012; Lobato
2012), as elaborated in a previous section, and in line with the spirit of action research about ‘what
counts as evidence’ (Kemmis and McTaggart 1992). In seeking methodological consistency (Cohen,
Manion, and Morrison 2011), we choose to use qualitative methods (strategies, techniques and
instruments) of data collection and analysis, that allow us to describe the phenomenon of learning,
focussing on the students, learning assistants and teachers’ experiences.
The project has three educational research purposes, i.e. to explore, to describe, and to evaluate.
As shown in Tables 4–6, each research purpose is translated into a distinctive research question, has
its own focus and approach, and makes a different contribution to the overall project. The purposes
and research questions are to explore (RQ1) how students learn electrochemistry under the pro-
posed intervention, to describe (RQ2) in what ways the student learning is embedded in the learning
environment, and to evaluate (RQ3) to what extent the intervention has any effect on the learning
outcomes.

Explore
Exploring could be seen to extend beyond the scope of the action research approach (if defined nar-
rowly), as it responds to a more fundamental interest to understand the progress of learning.
Research question I reads: How do students learn electrochemistry under the proposed inter-
vention? The research activities will seek to elicit and observe the students’ activity and progress
in various situations. Table 4 summarises these research activities, including the strategies for
data collection and analysis.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 191

Table 4. Research design seeking exploration.

Research
question I How do students learn electrochemistry under the proposed intervention?
Focus Elicit the students’ reasoning and hands-on Observe behaviour and conduct recall interviews
activity, during lab practicums Content analysis (rather than motor skills) in terms of
conceptual modelling learning objectives
Elicit students’ progress in reasoning, during the Collect lab journals and practicum reports (including
construction of conceptual models students’ reflections)
Content analysis (rather than writing and presentational
skills) in terms of conceptual modelling learning
objectives
Elicit students’ reasoning and discursive activity, Observe preparatory and feedback meetings
during discussions with their learning Content analysis (rather than conversational) in terms of
assistants conceptual modelling learning objectives
Contribution The answer will provide fundamental understandin on the interaction of the intervention with the process of
learning.

Describe
The description intends to assist further generalisation of the research findings, in terms of external
validity (Mortelmans 2020). Research question II reads: In what ways is student learning
embedded in the learning environment? Responding to this question involves a narrative that
integrates various pieces, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Research design seeking description.

Research
question II In what ways is student learning embedded in the learning environment?
Focus Build on the findings related to RQ1 and RQ3: Collect indicators of progress in reasoning
behavioural aspects of learning Comparative analysis
Relate behavioural aspects of learning to assessment Collect process and product evaluation by learning
results assistants and teachers
Comparative analysis, including all learning
objectives
Provide a ‘thick description’ of the contextual Synthesise in writing
conditions Highlight key elements as tools for generalisation
Contribution The answer will contextualise the findings and provide tools for generalisation.

Evaluate
The purpose of evaluating resonates more clearly with the spirit of evidence-based justification, that
characterises action research. Here we aim to find out whether and to what extent the new course
has any effect on the students’ learning and transfer of knowledge. Research question III reads: To
what extent does the intervention have any effect on the learning outcomes? This question is
broken down into (IIIa) near-reaching and far-reaching learning outcomes in Module 4, and (IIIb) in
terms of mastery of concepts and the transfer of knowledge to scientific-problem solving situations
in Module 5. Such distinction is also shown in Table 6, along with the corresponding data collection
and analysis strategies.

Discussion and conclusion

The primary purpose of the present action research project is to enhance students’ deep understand-
ing of electrochemical phenomena, with a view on scientific problem-solving within and beyond the
initial learning context. This goes hand in hand with the broader learning objective of conceptual
modelling to develop into academically thinking professionals. The further goal is to introduce an
evidence-based and innovative pedagogical approach that can be rolled out to other learning pro-
grammes in engineering science education.
192 M. OROZCO ET AL.

Table 6. Research design seeking evaluation.

Research
question III To what extent does the intervention have any effect on the learning outcomes?
IIIa To what extent does the intervention have any effect on the near-reaching and far-reaching learning
outcomes?
Focus Near-reaching outcomes: reproducing, solving well- • Collect teachers’ perceptions in M4
structured problems • Collect last and this years’ exams (evaluate
Far-reaching outcomes: inferring, solving ill-structured the feasibility of comparison)
problems • Analyse the exams comparatively (between
cohorts), using the learning objectives as
criteria
• Triangulate in the light of teachers’
perceptions
IIIb To what extent does the intervention have any effect on mastery of concepts and on the transfer of
knowledge to scientific-problem solving?
Focus Mastery of concepts in terms of connections to new and/or • Collect teachers’ perceptions in M5
more encompassing concepts (e.g., inferential • Follow-up students from M4 to M5: collect
connection of ‘cell potential’ to ‘Gibbs free energy’) exams, quizzes, reports
Mastery of concepts in terms of their use in generative/ • Analyse the documents comparatively
scientific problem-solving (within the same cohort)
Contribution The answer will constitute evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention (to the extent that observed
differences can be attributed to the intervention, e.g., by means of triangulation)

We constructed a theoretical framework in which we, firstly, acknowledged our perspectives on

learning (i.e. the mastery metaphor) and transfer (i.e. adaptive, learner-centred generalisation). These
perspectives have implications for educational practice and research. Secondly, we elaborated on
selected teaching approaches (e.g. inquiry-based learning, mixed general-infusion intervention)
and provided rationales for our choices. Finally, we focused on conceptual models and on the mod-
elling activity for their key role in the development of academic thinking skills and the deep learning
of domain knowledge.
Furthermore, we presented the concept of action research (its meaning and its relevance) while
explaining how the action research method is embedded in our context of study, its content, and the
empirical setting.
Consistent with our theoretical framework, we advanced an integrated pedagogical intervention
that is being implemented in the second bachelor year of a chemical science engineering pro-
gramme. The main elements of the overall intervention were described, including: the sequencing
of theoretical lectures, general teaching of conceptual modelling, and lab practicums scaffolded by
conceptual modelling strategies. Importantly, the elements of our intervention are in line with new
developments in electrochemistry education to promote a mastery and deep learning approach to
learning, e.g.: (i) addressing students’ alternative concepts and predictions by making them explicit
in group discussions (Schmidt, Marohn, and Harrison 2007; Treagust, Mthembu, and Chandrasegaran
2014), (ii) designing a sequencing by which ambiguous terms are avoided or delayed to prevent mis-
leading mismatches between correct terms and alternative interpretations or meanings (Schmidt,
Marohn, and Harrison 2007), (iii) introducing more appropriate experiments that, rather than starting
with an experiment that is overwhelming for the students, start with a very simple experiment that
allows clarify some basic features of cells, along with the corresponding concepts (De Jong and Trea-
gust 2002). Although these interventions are proposed on the basis of empirical studies, De Jong and
Treagust (2002) call for further research to evaluate the ‘teachability and learnability’ of such new
approaches; moreover, the successful implementation of such approaches requires teachers who
are both willing and capable to do so; recommendations for teachers professionalisation in this
respect are also given.
In the same line, we designed an educational piece of research with three purposes, i.e. (I) to
explore how students learn electrochemistry under the proposed intervention, (II) to describe in
what ways student learning is embedded in the learning environment, and (III) to evaluate the
extent to which the pedagogical intervention has any effect on the learning outcomes. Each
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 193

purpose has its own focus and approach and makes a different contribution to the overall project.
The first purpose could be seen to extend beyond the scope of the action research approach (if
defined narrowly), as it responds to a more fundamental interest to understand the progress of learn-
ing. In contrast, the last purpose fits more clearly in the spirit of evidence-based justification. In the
middle, the second purpose of the description is to assist further generalisation of the overall
findings.
Furthermore, we aim to consider existing knowledge in our research field during the analytical
phase of our investigation; this, we expect, will provide a broader perspective and more thorough
basis to our conclusions and further work. More specifically, we will attend to known recurrent
difficulties in learning and teaching electrochemical concepts, which seem to be rooted on, e.g.
rote application of electrochemical concepts and algorithms, the use of multiple definitions/mean-
ings although they stem from different contexts (e.g. the phenomenological, the particulate, the
measurement/calculation, and the thermodynamic context), the use multiple or of hybrid
models, students’ wrong interpretations of language, too early connection of labels to meaning,
and misleading analogy (De Jong and Treagust 2002; Schmidt, Marohn, and Harrison 2007).
Also, we will consider prior knowledge on contributing factors to students’ using particular
approaches to learning such as organised studying, motivation to study, interest, perception of
challenge, self-efficacy beliefs, and perceptions of fragmented knowledge base (Lindblom-
Ylänne, Parpala, and Postareff 2019).
Finally, recent empirical work on understanding concepts of electrochemistry resonates with ours
in the importance attached to teachers and LAs’ continuing professionalisation, given that concep-
tual understanding often remains underdeveloped even after years of university education (Rahayu,
Treagust, and Chandrasegaran 2021); indeed, the instructors should be aware of alternative con-
ceptions held by students to be prepared to deal with these conceptions in their teaching.

Threats
Next to any limitations that may come up in the course of this action research, so far, we have ident-
ified two potential methodological issues. The first one, concerns the feasibility of straightforward
comparison of existing to new data (e.g. exam questions of different kind over the years); the com-
parative analysis might require much interpretation (e.g. via constructed units of analysis, rather than
using the ‘raw data’).
The second issue concerns the attribution of the observed effects (e.g. differences in learning out-
comes or other performance indicators) to the intervention. We aim to find evidence for the effec-
tiveness of the intervention but need to be cautious when assuming attributability; the affordances
of our research methods may not warranty such claims. On consideration of the actual research pro-
cedure, an evaluation will be made on whether it is defendable to claim a quasi-experimental design,
where the cohort before the intervention (the control group) is compared to the cohort having the
intervention (the experimental group). We plan to use other strategies such as data triangulation and
deliberate attention to disconfirming evidence.

Implications
This project is expected to contribute directly to the learning and/or professional development of all
involved, in particular the students and the learning assistants. Furthermore, we expect that it will
have implications on engineering educational practice, given that the conclusion can be informative
for further redesign of the intervention and its implementation in the context of study and in other
engineering programmes. Also, implications on educational science, as the findings promise to
provide fundamental insight into the interaction of the intervention with the process of learning
and the development of scientific reasoning. Finally, implications on philosophy of science in
194 M. OROZCO ET AL.

practice, as the empirical evidence may add to existing knowledge on scientific-technological con-
ceptual modelling, in terms of backing and further refinement or extension.

Note
1. This remark was made by the CSE programme director and reflects the perception of the teachers’ team. This
claim is based on the staff’s extensive experience and careful observation of the students’ learning and transfer
across the various modules. Such observation connects to the distinction between surface-level and deep-level
processing (Marton and Säljö 1976) which, roughly, emphasises the quality and the content of what is learned
(rather than how much is learned).

Notes on contributors
Dr. ir. Mariana Orozco is a postdoctoral researcher in Educational Sciences for the Department of Philosophy at the
University of Twente. She conducted her PhD at the University of Antwerp. Her PhD dissertation concerns the Integra-
tive Learning of Theory and Practice, and it is embedded in the context of Chemical Processing Technologies. She built a
career as a civil chemical engineer in various industrial sectors, where she became increasingly interested in how pro-
fessionals (at all hierarchical levels) learn and develop. She holds an MSc in Chemical Engineering (Universidad Tecno-
lógica Nacional, Argentina), an MSc in Instructional and Educational Sciences (University of Antwerp, Belgium), and an
MSc in Educational Research (University of Portsmouth, UK). Her research situates in the areas of professional learning
and learning in transition. She is particularly interested in the micro-level of education and instruction, learning theories
and the psychology of learning, reasoning in learning processes, and educational research methodology. Currently, she
conducts research on the development of higher-order skills in Engineering Education, with particular attention to the
Epistemology of Science in Practice.
Prof.dr.ir. Mieke Boon is full professor in Philosophy of Science in Practice. She is core-teacher in Philosophy of Science,
Technology and Society (PSTS), and Dean of the University College ATLAS. Her scientific background is in chemical
engineering, in which she received an MSc and PhD, both cum laude. In 2003-2008 and 2012-2017 she worked on per-
sonal grants of the Dutch National Science Foundation (NWO-Vidi and NWO-Vici/Aspasia), to develop a philosophy of
science for the engineering sciences. She established an international movement SPSP in the Philosophy of Science in
Practice. Her citation scores in engineering sciences and philosophy are high. She designed educational innovations
based on new philosophical insights, in ATLAS and biomedical, chemical, electrical engineering. She is chair of the
Section Theoretical Philosophy of the National Dutch Research School in Philosophy (OZSW). Her current research inter-
ests in philosophy and education are: interdisciplinarity, complexity, modelling, creativity, innovation, and higher-order
cognitive skills.
Dr. Arturo Susarrey Arce completed his PhD at the University of Twente. The focus of his work was on the development
of structured materials with applications in the field of energy, chemistry, and material sciences. After graduation, he
continued his research work in the field of antimicrobial surfaces (University of Liverpool), in the field of nanofabrication
(Chalmers University of Technology), and in mesoscale chemical systems including energy, chemistry, material sciences,
and health (University of Twente). He is assistant professor for the Department of Chemical Science & Engineering at the
University of Twente, where he co-teaches Electrochemistry (BSc level) and Chemical Process Analysis (MSc level). He
co-supervises bachelor and master assignments related to material sciences, physics, chemistry, and chemical
technology.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Blanchard, P. N., J. W. Thacker, and A. Pichai. 2013. Effective Training: Systems, Strategies, and Practices. Harlow: Pearson
Education.
Boon, M. 2020. “Scientific Methodology in the Engineering Sciences.” In The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of
Engineering, 1st ed., edited by D. P. Michelfelder, and N. Doorn, 80–94. New York: Routledge.
Boon, M., and T. Knuuttila. 2009. “Models as Epistemic Tools in Engineering Sciences: A Pragmatic Approach.” In
Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 9, edited by A.
Meijers, 687–720. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 195

Bransford, J. D., and D. L. Schwartz. 1999. “Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal with Multiple Implications.” Review of
Research in Education 24: 61–100.
Cancela, A., R. Maceiras, A. Sánchez, M. Izquierdo, and S. Urréjola. 2016. “Use of Learning Miniprojects in a Chemistry
Laboratory for Engineering.” European Journal of Engineering Education 41 (1): 23–33.
Case, J. M., and R. F. Gunstone. 2003. “Approaches to Learning in a Second Year Chemical Engineering Course.”
International Journal of Science Education 25 (7): 801–819.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. R. B. Morrison. 2011. Research Methods in Education. 7th ed. New York: Routledge.
Davis, E. A., and M. C. Linn. 2000. “Scaffolding Students’ Knowledge Integration: Prompts for Reflection in KIE.”
International Journal of Science Education 22 (8): 819–837.
De Jong, O., and D. Treagust. 2002. “The Teaching and Learning of Electrochemistry.” In Chemical Education: Towards
Research-Based Practice, edited by J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. Treagust, and J. H. Van Driel, 317–337.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Derry, J. 2017. “An Introduction to Inferentialism in Mathematics Education.” Mathematics Education Research Journal 29
(4): 403–418.
Edelson, D. C., D. N. Gordin, and R. D. Pea. 1999. “Addressing the Challenges of Inquiry-Based Learning Through
Technology and Curriculum Design.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 8 (3-4): 391–450.
Engle, R. A., D. P. Lam, X. S. Meyer, and S. E. Nix. 2012. “How Does Expansive Framing Promote Transfer? Several
Proposed Explanations and a Research Agenda for Investigating Them.” Educational Psychologist 47 (3): 215–231.
Ennis, R. H. 1962. A Concept of Critical Thinking: Harvard Educational Review.
Ennis, R. H. 1989. “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research.” Educational Researcher
18 (3): 4–10.
Eraut, M. 1985. “Knowledge Creation and Knowledge use in Professioal Contexts.” Studies in Higher Education 10 (2):
117–133.
Fuller, T. F., and J. N. Harb. 2018. Electrochemical engineering.
Ippolito, K. O. 2019. “Cognitive Development: The Scaffold for Critical Thought.” Nursing Education Perspectives 40 (4):
236–237.
Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 1992. The Action Research Planner. Victoria: Deakin University.
Khalaf, B. K., and Z. B. M. Zin. 2018. “Traditional and Inquiry-Based Learning Pedagogy: A Systematic Critical Review.”
International Journal of Instruction 11 (4): 545–564.
Knuuttila, T., and M. Boon. 2011. “How do Models Give us Knowledge? The Case of Carnot’s Ideal Heat Engine.” European
Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (3): 309.
Lazonder, A. W., and R. Harmsen. 2016. “Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning: Effects of Guidance.” Review of
Educational Research 86 (3): 681–718.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., A. Parpala, and L. Postareff. 2019. “What Constitutes the Surface Approach to Learning in the Light
of new Empirical Evidence?” Studies in Higher Education 44 (12): 2183–2195.
Lobato, J. 2006. “Alternative Perspectives on the Transfer of Learning: History, Issues, and Challenges for Future
Research.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 15 (4): 431–449.
Lobato, J. 2008. “Research Methods for Alternative Approaches to Transfer: Implications for Design Experiments.” In
Handbook of Design Research Methods in Education: Innovations in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Learning and Teaching, 1st ed., edited by A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, and J. Y. Baek, 167–194. London:
Routledge.
Lobato, J. 2012. “The Actor-Oriented Transfer Perspective and Its Contributions to Educational Research and Practice.”
Educational Psychologist 47 (3): 232–247.
Lobato, J., C. D. Walters, C. Hohensee, J. Gruver, and J. M. Diamond. 2015. “Leveraging Failure in Design Research.” ZDM:
Mathematics Education 47 (6): 963–979.
Madhuri, G. V., V. S. S. N. Kantamreddi, and L. N. S. Prakash Goteti. 2012. “Promoting Higher Order Thinking Skills Using
Inquiry-Based Learning.” European Journal of Engineering Education 37 (2): 117–123.
Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976. “On Qualitative Differences in Learning I: Outcome and Process.” British Journal of
Educational Psychology 46: 4–11.
Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1997. “Approaches to Learning.” In The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and
Studying in Higher Education, 2nd ed., edited by F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle, 39–58. Edinburgh:
Scottish Academic Press.
Marzano, R. J., and e al. 1988. Dimensions of Thinking: A Framework for Curriculum and Instruction. Alexandria: The
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mortelmans, D. 2020. Manual of Qualitative Research Methods. Leuven: Acco.
Newstetter, W. C. 2005. “Designing Cognitive Apprenticeships for Biomedical Engineering.” Journal of Engineering
Education 94 (2): 207–213.
Orozco, M. 2022. Integrative Learning of Theory and Practice. Exploration, Conceptualisation and Description in the
Context of Chemical Process Technology.
Orozco, M., D. Gijbels, and C. Timmerman. 2019. “Empirical Conceptualisation of Integrative Learning. A Focus on
Theory-Practice Integration in Technical Vocational Education and Training.” Vocations and Learning 12 (3): 405–424.
196 M. OROZCO ET AL.

Orozco, M., D. Gijbels, and C. Timmerman. 2020. “Conceiving the Relationship Between Theory and Practice in T-VET. An
in-Depth Study on key Actors’ Epistemological Perspectives.” Journal of Vocational Education and Training 73 (3):
392–412.
Pedaste, M., M. Mäeots, L. A. Siiman, T. de Jong, S. A. N. van Riesen, E. T. Kamp, C. C. Manoli, Z. C. Zacharia, and E.
Tsourlidaki. 2015. “Phases of Inquiry-Based Learning: Definitions and the Inquiry Cycle.” Educational Research
Review 14: 47–61.
Perkins, D. N., and G. Salomon. 2012. “Knowledge to Go: A Motivational and Dispositional View of Transfer.” Educational
Psychologist 47 (3): 248–258.
Rahayu, S., D. F. Treagust, and A. L. Chandrasegaran. 2021. “High School and Preservice Chemistry Teacher Education
Students’ Understanding of Voltaic and Electrolytic Cell Concepts: Evidence of Consistent Learning Difficulties
Across Years.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-021-10226-6.
Salomon, G., and D. N. Perkins. 1989. “Rocky Roads to Transfer: Rethinking Mechanism of a Neglected Phenomenon.”
Educational Psychologist 24 (2): 113–142.
Santana-Vega, L. E., A. Suarez-Perdomo, and L. Feliciano-Garcia. 2020. “Inquiry-based Learning in the University Context:
A Systematic Review.” Revista Espanola De Pedagogia 78 (277): 519–537.
Schmidt, H., A. Marohn, and A. G. Harrison. 2007. “Factors That Prevent Learning in Electrochemistry.” Journal of Research
in Science Teaching 44 (2): 258–283.
Schwartz, D., J. D. Bransford, and D. Sears. 2005. “Efficiency and Innovation in Transfer.” In Transfer of Learning from a
Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre, 1–52. IAP: Greenwich, CT.
Schwartz, D. L., C. C. Chase, and J. D. Bransford. 2012. “Resisting Overzealous Transfer: Coordinating Previously
Successful Routines with Needs for New Learning.” Educational Psychologist 47 (3): 204–214.
Schwarz, C. V., B. J. Reiser, E. A. Davis, L. Kenyon, A. Achér, D. Fortus, Y. Shwartz, B. Hug, and J. Krajcik. 2009. “Developing a
Learning Progression for Scientific Modeling: Making Scientific Modeling Accessible and Meaningful for Learners.”
TEA Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (6): 632–654.
Taylor, S. D., R. Noorloos, and A. Bakker. 2017. “Mastering as an Inferentialist Alternative to the Acquisition and
Participation Metaphors for Learning.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 51 (4): 769–784.
Treagust, D. F., Z. Mthembu, and A. L. Chandrasegaran. 2014. “Evaluation of the Predict-Observe-Explain Instructional
Strategy to Enhance Students’ Understanding of Redox Reactions.” In Learning with Understanding in the
Chemistry Classroom, edited by I. Devetak, and S. A. Glažar, 265–286. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Tynjälä, P. 2008. “Perspectives Into Learning at the Workplace.” Educational Research Review 3 (2): 130–154.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G. 2013. “Perspectives on Problem Solving and Instruction.” Computers & Education 64: 153–160.
Virkki-Hatakka, T., R. Tuunila, and N. Nurkka. 2013. “Development of Chemical Engineering Course Methods Using Action
Research: Case Study.” European Journal of Engineering Education 38 (5): 469–484.