College students'conceptions of chemical stability: The widespread adoption of a heuristic rule out of context and beyond its range of application

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 31, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1333-1358

  Taber, Keith S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449598357     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690801975594     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students' understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 305-316.
2. Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils' expectations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70(5), 549-563.
3. Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1999). Students' reasoning about chemical reactions: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 645-665.
4. Biddle, B. J., & Anderson, D. S. (1986). Theory, methods, knowledge and research on teaching, In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 230-252). New York: Macmillan.
5. Carr, M. (1984). Model confusion in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 14, 97-103
6. Cavallo, A. M. L., McNeely, J. C., & Marek, E. A. (2003). Eliciting students' understandings of chemical reactions using two forms of essay questions during a learning cycle. International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 583-603.
7. Briggs, H., & Holding, B. (1986). Aspects of secondary students' understanding of elementary ideas in Chemistry, full report (Children's Learning in Science Project). Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
8. DfEE/QCA. (1999). Science: The national curriculum for England, key stages 1-4. London: Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
9. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
10. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
11. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
12. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.
13. Duit, R. (1991). Students' conceptual frameworks: Consequences for learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 65-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Education in Chemistry. (2000). RSC teacher fellow 2000-2001. Education in Chemistry, 37(4), 90.
15. Eybe, H., & Schmidt, H. -J. (2001). Quality criteria and exemplary papers in chemistry education research. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 209-225.
16. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (forthcoming). Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer.
17. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (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.
18. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189-212). Dordecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
19. Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students' conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 277-299.
20. Jensen, W. B. (1984). Abegg, Lewis, Langmuir, and the octet rule. Journal of Chemical Education, 61(3), 191-200.
21. Jensen, W. B. (1995). Logic, history and the teaching of chemistry. Keynote lectures given at the 57th Annual Summer Conference of the New England Association of Chemistry Teachers, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT.
22. Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children's understanding of a 'basic' particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 393-412.
23. Johnson, P. (2000). Children's understanding of substances, part 1: Recognising chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 719-737.
24. Johnson, P. (2002). Children's understanding of substances, Part 2: Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1037-1054.
25. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry-Logical or psychological? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9-15.
26. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of 'the atom'. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 993-1009.
27. Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: Students' misconceptions about basic chemical ideas (2nd ed.). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
28. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrove (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
30. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31. Nelson, P. G. (2002). Teaching chemistry progressively: From substances, to atoms and molecules, to electrons and nuclei. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 3(2), 215-228.
32. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classsroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
33. Osborne, R. J. (1985). Building on children's intuitive ideas. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children's science (41-50). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
34. Pauling, L., & Pauling, P. (1975). Chemistry. San Franscisco: W. H. Freeman.
35. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
36. Pope, M., & Denicolo, P. (1986). Intuitive theories-A researcher's dilemma: Some practical methodological implications. British Educational Research Journal, 12(2), 153-166.
37. Royal Society of Chemistry. (n.d.). Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diagnosis and cure Retrieved August 16, 2007, from http://www.chemsoc.org/networks/learnnet/miscon2.htm.
38. Solomon, J. (1993). Four frames for a field. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas (Eds.), Children's informal ideas in science (1-19). London: Routledge.
39. Solsona, N., Izquierdo, M., & de Jong, O. (2003). Exploring the development of students' conceptual profiles of chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 3-12.
40. Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1989). Physical phenomena-Chemical phenomena: Do pupils make the distinction? International Journal of Science Education, 11(1), 83-92.
41. Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1998). Conceptual reorganisation and the construction of the chemical reaction concept during secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 205-221.
42. Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597-608.
43. Taber, K. S. (2000). Case studies and generalisability-Grounded theory and research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 469-487.
44. Taber, K. S. (2001a). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(2), 123-158.
45. Taber, K. S. (2001b). Shifting sands: A case study of conceptual development as competition between alternative conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 731-753.
46. Taber, K. S. (2002a). Chemical misconceptions-Prevention, diagnosis and cure: Volume 1: theoretical background. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
47. Taber, K. S. (2002b). Chemical misconceptions-Prevention, diagnosis and cure: Volume 2: classroom resources. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
48. Taber, K. S. (2003a). Understanding ionisation energy: Physical, chemical and alternative conceptions. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(2), 149-169.
49. Taber, K. S. (2003b). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5(1), 43-84.
50. Taber, K. S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89(1), 94-116.
51. Taber, K. S. (2006). Beyond constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42, 125-184.
52. Taber, K. S. (2007). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: A guide for teachers. London: Sage Publications.
53. Taber, K. S. (2008). Conceptual resources for learning science: Issues of transience and grain-size in cognition and cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, DOI: 10.1080/ 09500690701485082.
54. Taber, K. S., & Tan, K. C. D. (2007). Exploring learners' conceptual resources: Singapore A level students' explanations in the topic of ionisation energy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 375-392.
55. Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (2000). Learners' explanations for chemical phenomena. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(3), 329-353.
56. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate student's misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169.
57. van Driel, J. H., de Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1990). Why do some molecules react, while others don't? In P. L. Lijnse, P. Licht, W. de Vos, & A. J. Waarlo (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles: A central problem in secondary science education (pp. 151-162). Utrecht, The Nertherlands: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Utrecht, CD-ß Press.
58. Watson, R., & Dillon, J. (1996). Progression in pupils' understanding of combustion. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 243-253). London: Falmer Press.
59. Watson, R., Prieto, T., & Dillon, J. S. (1997). Consistency of students' explanations about combustion. Science Education, 81, 425-443.
60. Watts, D. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1983). Enigmas in school science: Students' conceptions for scientifically associated words. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(2), 161-171.