Classification of chemical reactions: Stages of expertise

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 45, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 771-793

  Stains, Marilyne ^a   Talanquer, Vicente ^a  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemistry; Cognitive development; Problem solving

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT; PROBLEM-SOLVING;

CHEMICAL REACTIONS; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); FUNCTIONAL GROUPS; REAL TIME SYSTEMS; STUDENTS;

SYNTHESIS (CHEMICAL);

EID: 51549105373     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20221     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abraham, M.R., Williamson, V.M., & Westbrook, S.L. (1994). Across-age study of the understanding of 5 chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 147-165.
2. Al-Kunifed, A., Good, R., & Wandersee, J. (1993). Investigation of high school chemistry students' concepts of chemical symbol, formula, and equation: Students' prescientific conceptions (Publication no. ED 376020). Retrieved 01/11/2007, from ERIC http://www.eric.ed.gov/
3. Bailenson, J.N., Shum, M.S., Atran, S., Medin, D.L., & Coley, J.D. (2002). A bird's eye view: Biological categorization and reasoning within and across cultures. Cognition, 84, 1-53.
4. Barker, V., & Millar, R. (2000). Students' reasoning about basic chemical thermodynamics and chemical bonding: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1171-1200.
5. Barsalou, L.W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11, 211-227.
6. Benzvi, R., Eylon, B.S., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64-66.
7. Birk, J.P., & Kurtz, M.J. (1999). Effect of experience on retention and elimination of misconceptions about molecular structure and bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 124-128.
8. Bransford, J. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9. Bruner, J.S. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
10. Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory - objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249-291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
12. Coll, R.K., & Treagust, D.F. (2001). Learners' mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357-382.
13. Day, D.V., & Lord, R.G. (1992). Expertise and problem categorization - the role of expert processing in organizational sense-making. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 35-47.
14. del Pozo, R.M. (2001). Prospective teachers' ideas about the relationships between concepts describing the composition of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 353-371.
15. Ericsson, K.A. (2003). The acquisition of expert performance as problem solving. In J.E. Davidson & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 31-83). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16. Finney, R.M., & Schwenz, R.W. (2005). Expert and novice categorization of general chemistry problems. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, 229, U571-U571.
17. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 548-554.
18. Glaser, R. (1989). Expertise and learning: How do we think about instructional processes now that we have discovered knowledge structures? In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 269-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Hayes, B.K., Foster, K., & Gadd, N. (2003). Prior knowledge and subtyping effects in children's category learning. Cognition, 88, 171-199.
20. Hmelo, C.E. (1998). Problem-based learning: Effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 173-208.
21. Johnson, K.E. (2001). Impact of varying levels of expertise on decisions of category typicality. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1036-1050.
22. Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching - a changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701-705.
23. Kozma, R.B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949-968.
24. Lajoie, S.P. (2003). Transition and trajectories for studies of expertise. Educational Researcher, 32, 21-25.
25. Larkin, J. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (1999) Concepts: Core readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Medin, D.L., Lynch, E.B., Coley, J.D., & Atran, S. (1997). Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome? Cognitive Psychology, 32, 49-96.
28. Moss, J., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2006). The role of functionality in the mental representations of engineering students: Some differences in the early stages of expertise. Cognitive Science, 30, 65-93.
29. Murphy, G.L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Murphy, G.L., & Medin, D.L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.
31. Nakhleh, M.B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children's beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 777-805.
32. Palmeri, T.J., & Blalock, C. (2000). The role of background knowledge in speeded perceptual categorization. Cognition, 77, B45-B57.
33. Papageorgiou, G., & Sakka, D. (2000). Primary school teachers' views on fundamental chemical concepts. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1, 237-247.
34. Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M., & Boyesbraem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
35. Rouder, J.N., & Ratcliff, R. (2006). Comparing exemplar- and rule-based theories of categorization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 9-13.
36. Sanger, M.J. (2000). Using particulate drawings to determine and improve students' conceptions of pure substances and mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 762-766.
37. Schummer, J. (1998). The chemical core of chemistry 1: A conceptual approach. Hyle, 4, 129-162.
38. Shane, J. W., & Bodner, G.M. (2006). General chemistry students' understanding of structure-function relationships. Chemical Educator, 11, 130-137.
39. Stains, M., & Talanquer, V. (2007). Classification of chemical substances using particulate representations of matter: An analysis of student thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 643-661.
40. Talanquer, V. (2006). Commonsense chemistry: A model for understanding students' alternative conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 811-816.
41. Tanaka, J.W., & Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise-is the basic level in the eye of the beholder. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 457-482.
42. Thagard, P., & Toombs, E. (2005). Atoms, categorization and conceptual change. In C. Lefebvre (Ed.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 243-254). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
43. Wu, H.K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465-492.