Interactive lecture demonstrations: A tool for exploring and enhancing conceptual change

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 197-211

  Zimrot, Rachel ^a   Ashkenazi, Guy ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

Cognitive conflict; Conceptual change; Interactive Lecture Demonstrations (ILD); Levels of conceptual change; Mental models

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247488862     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/B6RP90030E     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Ashkenazi G. and Weaver G.C., (2007), Interactive lecture demonstrations as a context for classroom discussion : effective design and presentation, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8. 186-196.
2. Bodner G.M., (2001), Why lecture demonstrations are 'exocharmic' for both students and their instructors, University Chemical Education, 5, 31-35.
3. Chinn C.A. and Brewer W.F., (1998), An empirical text of taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623-654.
4. Crouch C.H., Fagen A.P., Callan J.P. and Mazur E., (2004), Classroom demonstrations: learning tool or entertainment? American Journal of Physics, 72, 835-838.
5. Driver R., Guesne E. and Tiberghien A., (1985), Children's ideas and the learning of science, in R. Driver, E. Guesne and A. Tiberghien (eds.), Children's ideas in science, Open University Press, London, UK, 1-9.
6. Gobert J.D. and Buckley B.C., (2000), Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education, International Journal of Science Education, 22, 891-894.
7. Galili I., Goldberg F. and Bendall, S., (1993), Effects of prior knowledge and instruction on understanding image formation, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 271-303.
8. Galili I. and Hazan A., (2000), An Influence of historical oriented course on students' content knowledge in optics evaluated by means of facets - schemes analysis, Physics Education Research American Journal of Physics Supplying, 68, 3-15.
9. Hake R.R., (1998), Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six thousand students survey of mechanics test data from introductory physics course, American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
10. Hake R.R., (2002), Lessons from the physics education reform effort, Conservation Ecology, 5 (2), article 28, http://www.consecol.org/vol5/ iss2/art28..
11. Kang S., Scharmann L.C. and Noh T., (2004), Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning, Research in Science Education, 34, 71-96.
12. Limon M., (2001), On cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change, Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
13. Mason L., (2001), Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change. Learning and Instruction, 11, 453-483.
14. Nussbaum J., (1985), The particulate nature of matter in the gaseous phase, in R. Driver, E. Guesne and A. Tiberghien (eds.) Children's ideas in science, Open University Press, London, UK, 124-144.
15. Pfundt H. and Duit R., (2000), Bibliography: students' alternative frameworks and science education, University of Kiel Institute for Science Education, Kiel, Germany.
16. Posner G.J., Strike K.A., Hewson P.W. and Gertzog W.A., (1982), Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change, Science Education, 66, 211-227.
17. Shepardson D.P. and Moje E.B., (1999), The role of anomalous data in restructuring fourth graders' frameworks for understanding electric circuits, International Journal of Science Education, 21, 77-94.
18. Sokoloff D.R. and Thornton R.K., (1997), Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment, The Physics Teacher, 35, 340-347.
19. Strike K.A. and Posner J.G., (1992), A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl, and R. Hamilyon (Eds.), Psychology of science cognitive psychological and educational theory and practice, Albany, NY pp.147-176.
20. Smith J.P., diSessa A.A. and Roschelle J., (1993), Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
21. Tirosh D., Stavy, R. and Cohen S., (1998), Cognitive conflict and intuitive rules, International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1257-1269.
22. Wood C. and Brayfogle B., (2006), Interactive demonstrations for mole ratios and limiting reagent, Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 741-748.