Understanding mental models of dilution in Thai students

International Journal of Environmental and Science Education

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 147-168

  Jansoon, Ninna ^a   Coll, Richard K ^b   Somsook, Ekasith ^a  

^a MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Dilution; Macroscopic level; Mental model; Sub microscopic level; Symbolic level

Indexed keywords

EID: 66549088323     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13063065     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New york: Wiley.
2. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317-337.
3. Beall, H., & Prescott, S. (1994). Concepts and calculations in chemistry teaching and learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(2), 111-112.
4. Bowen, C. W. (1998). Item design considerations for computer-based testing of student learning in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(9), 1172-1174.
5. Bunce, D. M., Gabel, D. L., & Samuel, K. B. (1991). Enhancing chemistry problem-solving achievement using problem categorization. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(6), 505-521.
6. Çalik, M. (2005). A cross-age study of different perspectives in solution chemistry from junior to senior high school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 671-696.
7. Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005). A cross-age study on the understanding of chemical solution and their components. International Education Journal, 6(1), 30-41.
8. Case, J. M., & Fraser, D. M. (1999). An investigation into chemical engineering students' understanding of the mole and the use of concrete activities to promote conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 21(12), 1237-1249.
9. Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2008). An evaluation of a teaching intervention to promote students' ability to use multiple levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical reactions. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 237-248.
10. Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). The modelling ability of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 274-292.
11. Chittleborough, G. D., Treagust, D. F., Mamiala, T. L., & Mocerino, M. (2005). Students' perceptions of the role of models in the process of science and in the process of learning. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(2), 195-212.
12. Coll, R. K. (1999). Learners' mental models of chemical bonding. Unpublished dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
13. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003a). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners' mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 464-486.
14. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003b). Learners' mental models of metallic bonding: A cross-age study. Science Education, 87(5), 685-707.
15. Copolo, C. E., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 295-305.
16. Dagher, Z. R. (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change? Science Education, 78(6), 601-614.
17. Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. K. (2007). Thai Grade 10 and 11 students' conceptual understanding and ability to solve stoichiometry problems. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(2), 227-241.
18. Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Thai Grade 10 and 11 students' understanding of stoichiometry and related concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 573-600.
19. Devetak, I. (2005). Explaining the latent structure of understanding submicropresentations in science. Unpublished dissertation, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
20. Devetak, I., Urbančič, M., Wissiak Grm, K. S., Krnel, D., & Glažar, S. A. (2004). Submicroscopic representations as a tool for evaluating students' chemical conceptions. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 51, 799-814.
21. Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J., & Glažar, S. A. (in press). Assessing 16-Year-Old students' understanding of aqueous solution at submicroscopic level. Research in Science Education.
22. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 278-302.
23. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672.
24. Dunnivant, F. M., Simon, D. M., & Willson, S. (2002). The making of a solution: A simple but poorly understood concept in general chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 7(4), 207-210.
25. Farnham-Diggory, S. (1994). Paradigms of knowledge and instruction. Review of Educational Research. 64(3), 463-477.
26. Foshay, R., & Kirkley, J. (2003). Principles for Teaching Problem Solving. Technical Paper (No. PLATO-TP-4). U.S. Minnesota
27. Franco, C., & Colinvaux, D. (2000). Grasping mental models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 93-118). Dordrecht: Kluwer
28. Gabel, D. L. (1993). Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193-194.
29. Gabel, D. L. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548-554.
30. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Rutherford, M. (2000). Explanations with models in science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 193-208). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
31. Gilbert, J. K., Watts, D. M., & Osborne, R. J. (2005). Eliciting student views using an interview-about-instances technique. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Constructing worlds through science education: The selected works of John K. Gilbert. London: Routledge.
32. Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894.
33. Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1-11.
34. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822.
35. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352-381.
36. Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 195-121.
37. Hinton, M. E., & Nakhleh, M. B. (1999). Students' microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions. The Chemical Educator, 4(4), 1-29.
38. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
39. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705.
40. Jonassen, D., & Tessmer, M. (1996). An outcome-based taxonomy for instructional systems design, evaluation and research. Training Research Journal, 2, 11-46.
41. 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(9), 949-968.
42. Lythcott, J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 248-252.
43. McElroy, L. J. (1996). Teaching dilutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(8), 765-766.
44. Mulford, D. R., & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 739-744.
45. Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. A. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Nurrenbem, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-510.
47. Pinarbasi, T., & Canpolat, N. (2003). Students' understanding of solution chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(11), 1328-1332.
48. Pittman, K. M. (1999). Student-generated analogies: Another way of knowing? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 1-22.
49. Raviolo, A. (2001). Assessing students' conceptual understanding of solubility equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(5), 629-631.
50. Robinson, W. R. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9), 978-982.
51. Russell, J. W., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 330-334.
52. Savelsbergh, E. R., De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (2002). Situational knowledge in physics: The case of electrodynamics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 928-951.
53. Schmidt, H. J., & Jignéus, C. (2003). Students' strategies in solving algorithmic stoichiometry problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(3), 305-317.
54. Staver, J. R., & Lumpe, A. T. (1995). Two investigations of students' understanding of the mole concept and its use in problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2), 177-193.
55. Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 141-159.
56. Treagust, D. F. (1993). The evolution of an approach for using analogies in teaching and learning science. Research in Science Education, 23, 293-301.
57. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education 25(11), 1353-1368.
58. Ünal, S., Çalik, M., Ayas, A., & Coll, R. K. (2006). A review of chemical bonding studies: Needs, aims, methods of exploring students' conceptions, general knowledge claims and students' alternative conceptions. Research in Science and Technological Education, 24(2), 141-172.
59. Van Der Veer, C. G., & Del Carmen Puerta Melguizo, M. (2003). Mental models. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications (pp. 52-80). Uitgever: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
60. Venville, G., Bryer, L., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). Training students in the use of analogies to enhance understanding in science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 40(60-68).
61. Wang, M. R. (2000). An introductory laboratory exercise on solution preparation: A rewarding experience. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 249-250.
62. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.