Students' predictions about the sensory properties of chemical compounds: Additive versus emergent frameworks

Science Education

Volumn 92, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 96-114

  Talanquer, Vicente ^a  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38049152591     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20235     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Allchin, D. (2005). The dilemma of dominance. Biology and Philosophy, 20,427-451.
2. Andersson, B. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils' preconceptions in science. European Journal of Science Education, 8,155-171.
3. Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils' conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12-16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53-85.
4. Barker, V. (2000). Beyond appearances: Students' misconceptions about basic chemical ideas, Royal Society of Chemistry, London. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.chemsoc.org/networks/leamnet/miscon.htm.
5. Ben-Zvi, R., Nylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1987a). Students' visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 177-120.
6. Ben-Zvi, R., Nylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1987b). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64-66.
7. Boo, H. K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high-school students' (aged 16-18) conceptualization about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85, 568-585.
8. Campanario, J. M., & Otero, J. G (2000). Más allá de las ideas previas como dificultades de aprendizaje: las pautas de pensamiento, las concepciones epistemológicas y las estrategias metacognitivas de los alumnos de ciencias [Beyond misconceptions in learning science: Science students' thinking patterns, epistemological conceptions and metacognitive strategies]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 18(2), 155-169.
9. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
10. de Cudmani, L. C., Pesa, M. A., & Salinas, J. (2000). Hacia un modelo integrador para el aprendizaje de las ciencias [Towards an integrated model in science learning]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 18(1), 3-13.
11. Donovan, M. P. (1997). The vocabulary of biology and the problem of semantics. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 381-382.
12. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas in science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
13. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushword, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.
14. Duit, R. (2004). Bibliography STCSE: Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education. IPN, Leibniz Institute for Science Education, Kiel, Germany, Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/ stcse/.
15. Furió, C. & Furió, G (2000). Dificultades conceptuales y epistemológicas en el aprendizaje de los procesos químicos [Conceptual and epistemological difficulties in learning about chemical processes]. Educación Química, 11(3), 300-308.
16. Gamett, P. J.; Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students' alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69-95.
17. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
18. Gutierrez, R., & Ogborn, J. (1992). A causal framework for analyzing alternative conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 201-220.
19. Halloun, I. A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056-1065.
20. Hayes, P. (1979). The naïve physics manifesto. In D. Michie (Ed.), Expert systems in the microelectronic age (pp. 242-270). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
21. Hilton, D. (2002). Thinking about causality: pragmatic, social and scientific rationality. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 211-231). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
22. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53-61.
23. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.
24. Luisi, P. L. (2002). Emergence in chemistry: Chemistry as the embodiment of emergence. Foundations of Chemistry, 4, 183-200.
25. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191-196.
26. Penner, D. E. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students' understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 784-806.
27. Pozo, J. I., & Gómez Crespo, M. A. (1998). Aprender y Enseñar Ciencia [Learning and teaching science]. Madrid: Morata.
28. Stains, M., & Talanquer, V. (2007). Classification schemes used by chemistry students to identify chemical substances. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 643-661; Erratum, International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 935-938.
29. Taber, K. (2001). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(2), 123-158.
30. Taber. K. (2002). Chemical misconceptions-Prevention, diagnosis and cure: Vol. I: Theoretical background. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
31. Talanquer, V. (2006). Common sense chemistry: A model for understanding students' alternative conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 811-816.
32. Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in physics: The part of common sense. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33. Wilensy, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-19.