Secondary students' thinking about familiar phenomena: Learners' explanations from a curriculum context where 'particles' is a key idea for organising teaching and learning

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 31, Issue 14, 2009, Pages 1917-1952

  Franco, Alejandra García ^a   Taber, Keith S ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449637673     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690802307730     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Adbo, K., & Taber, K. S. (2008). Learners' mental models of the particle nature of matter: a study of 16 year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500690701824850
2. Anderson, R. D. (1996). Study of curriculum reform. Washington, DC: US Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
3. APU. (1989a). Science at age 13: A review of APU survey findings 1980-84. Assessment of Performance Unit. London: HMSO.
4. APU. (1989b). National assessment: The APU science approach. Assessment of Performance Unit. London: HMSO.
5. Ault, C. R., Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Constructing Vee maps for clinical interviews on molecule concepts. Science Education, 68(4), 441-462.
6. 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.
7. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B -S., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64-66.
8. Briggs, H., & Holding, B. (1986). Aspects of secondary students' understanding of elementary ideas in Chemistry. Full report. Leeds, UK: Children's Learning in Science Project, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
9. Brook, A., Briggs, H., & Driver, R. (1984). Aspects of secondary students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter. Leeds, UK: Children's Learning in Science Project, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
10. de Jong, O., & Taber, K. S. (2007). Teaching and learning the many faces of chemistry. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 631-652). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. DES/WO. (1988). Science for ages 5 to 16. London/Cardiff, UK: Department for Education and Science/Welsh Office.
12. DfEE/QCA. (1999). Science: The National Curriculum for England, key stages 1-4. Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
13. DfES. (2002). Framework for teaching science: Years 7, 8 and 9. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. London: Department for Education and Skills.
14. DfES. (2006, September 13). National Curriculum assessment at key stage 3 in England, 2006. (Provisional, release SFR 34/2006). London: Department for Education and Skills.
15. DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40, 314-321.
16. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105-225.
17. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
18. Driver, R. (1989). Students' conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11(special issue), 481-490.
19. Driver, R., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1994). Young people's understanding of science concepts: implications of cross-age studies for curriculum planning. Studies in Science Education, 24, 75-100.
20. Education Reform Act. (1988). London: HMSO.
21. Eybe, H., & Schmidt, H -J. (2001). Quality criteria and exemplary papers in chemistry education research, International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 209-225.
22. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (Eds.). (1963). The Feynman lectures on physics (Vol. 1). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
23. García Franco, A. (2005). Multiple representations about the structure of matter. Royal Society of Chemistry Chemical Education Research Group Seminar. Retreived August 30, 2008 from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/142648.htm or www.rsc.org/images/CERGSeminar2005_tcm18-77398.pdf.
24. García Franco, A., & Taber, K. S. (2006, June). Learning processes and parallel conceptions-Learning about the particulate nature of matter. Paper presented at the 5th European symposium on conceptual change: Bridging the gap between mental models and situated cognition? Theoretical and methodological considerations, Stockholm, Sweden.
25. Georgousi, K., Kampourakis, C., & Tsaparlis, G. (2001). Physical-science knowledge and patterns of achievement at the primary-secondary interface, part 2: Able and top-achieving students. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(3), 253-263.
26. Gilbert, J. K., & Pope, M. L. (1986). Small group discussions about conceptions inscience: A case study. Research in Science & Technological Education, 4(1), 61-76.
27. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
28. Grevatt, A., Gilbert, J. K., & Newberry, M. (2007). Challenging able science learners through models and modeling. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Science education for gifted learners (pp. 85-99). London: Routledge.
29. Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R (1992). Grade-12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628.
30. Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, Lecture 3: Manifold cognitive resources. In E. F. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Research on Physics Education (pp. 321-340). Bologna/Amsterdam: Italian Physical Society/IOS Press.
31. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509-534.
32. 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, 352-381.
33. 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.
34. Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students' conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 277-299.
35. Jenkins, E. W. (2004). From option to compulsion: school science teaching, 1954-2004. School Science Review, 85(313), 33-40.
36. Johnson, P. M. (1998a). Progression in children's understanding of a 'basic' particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 393-412.
37. Johnson, P. (1998b). Children's understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, part 1: Boiling water and the particle theory. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 567-583.
38. Johnson, P. (1998c). Children's understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, part 2: Evaporation and condensation below boiling point. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 695-709.
39. Johnson, P. (2000a). Children's understanding of substances, part 1: Recognising chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 719-737.
40. Johnson, P. (2002b). Children's understanding of substances, part 2: Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1037-1054.
41. Johnson. P. M. (2005). The development of children's concept of a substance: A longitudinal study of interaction between curriculum and learning. Research in Science Education, 35(1), 41-61.
42. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry-Logical or psychological? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9-15.
43. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. (2003a) Strengthening teaching and learning of particles in Key Stage 3 science: Main messages. London: Department for Education and Skills.
44. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. (2003b). Strengthening teaching and learning of particles in Key Stage 3 science: Notes for participants. London: Department for Education and Skills.
45. Kind, V., & Taber, K. S. (2005). Science: Teaching school subjects 11-19. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
46. Kvale, S. (1996) InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
47. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An aproach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-142.
48. Lijnse, P. L., Licht, P., de Vos, W., & Waarlo, A. J. (Eds.). (1990). Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles: A central problem in secondary science education. Utrecht: University of Utrecht/CD-β Press.
49. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
50. Ministry of Education. (1993). Science in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
51. National Academy of Sciences. (1996). National science education standards. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
52. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific Research in Education. National Research Council Committee on Scientific Principles for Educational Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
53. Needham, R., & Hill, P. (1987). Teaching strategies for developing understanding in science. Leeds, UK: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, Children's Learning in Science Project.
54. Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross age study. Science Education, 65(2), 187-196.
55. Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183-200.
56. Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59-87.
57. Papageorgiou, G., & Johnson, P. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils' understanding of phenomena? International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1299-1317.
58. Pope, M. L., & Denicolo, P. (1986). Intuitive theories-A researcher's dilemma: Some practical methodological implications. British Educational Research Journal, 12(2), 153-166.
59. QCA. (2000). Key stage 3 schemes of work. Science Unit 7G: Particle model of solids, liquids and gases. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
60. QCA. (2001). Standards at key stage 3 Science: A report for headteachers, heads of department, science teachers and assessment coordinators on the 2000 national curriculum assessments for 14-year-olds. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
61. QCA. (2003). Standards at key stage 3 Science: A report for headteachers, heads of department, science teachers and assessment coordinators on the 2002 national curriculum assessments for 14-year-olds. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
62. QCA. (2004). Programme of study: Science Key stage 4. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
63. QCA. (2005). Science: Changes to the curriculum from 2006 for key stage 4. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
64. QCA. (2007a). Science: Programme of study for Key Stage 3 and attainment targets. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
65. QCA. (2007b). The new secondary curriculum. What has changed and why? London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
66. Renström, L., Andersson, B., & Marton, F. (1990). Students' conceptions of matter. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 555-569.
67. Schmidt, H. -J. (1991). A label as a hidden persuader: Chemists' neutralization concept. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 459-471.
68. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
69. Stahly, L. L., Krockover, G. H., & Shepardson, D. P. (1999). Third grade students' ideas about the lunar phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 159-177.
70. Statutory Instrument. (1989). The Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1989 (Statutory Instrument 1989 No. 309). London: HMSO.
71. Stoll, L., Stobart, G., Martin, S., Freeman, S., Freedman, E., Sammons, P., et al. (2003). Preparing for change: Evaluation of the implementation of the key stage 3 strategy pilot. London: Department for Education and Skills.
72. Taber, K. S. (1985). The presence of dissolved gas in water-Demonstration by salting out. School Science Review, 67(238), 101-104.
73. Taber, K. S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(2), 123-158.
74. Taber, K. S. (2002a). Chemical misconceptions-Prevention, diagnosis and cure: Theoretical background (Vol. 1). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
75. Taber, K. S. (2002b). 'Intense, but it's all worth it in the end': The colearner's experience of the research process,. British Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 435-457.
76. Taber, K. S. (2003). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5(1), 43-84.
77. Taber, K. S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89(1), 94-116.
78. Taber, K. S. (2006). Beyond constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42, 125-184.
79. Taber, K. S. (2007). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: A guide for teachers. London: SAGE.
80. Taber, K. S. (2008). Conceptual resources for learning science: Issues of transience and grain-size in cognition and cognitive structure [electronic version]. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1027-1053.
81. Taber, K. S., & García Franco, A. (in press). Intuitive thinking and learning chemistry. Education in Chemistry.
82. Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (1996). The secret life of the chemical bond: Students' anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 557-568.
83. Watts, D. M., & Gilbert, J. (1983). Enigmas in school science: Students' conceptions for scientifically associated words. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(2), 161-171.
84. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
85. Wightman, T., Green, P., & Scott, P. (1986). The construction of meaning and conceptual change in classroom settings: Case studies on the particulate nature of matter. Leeds, UK: Children's Learning in Science Project, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education.