Should we teach primary pupils about chemical change?

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1647-1664

  Papageorgiou, George ^a   Grammaticopoulou, Maria ^a   Johnson, Phil Michael ^b  

^a DEMOCRITUS UNIVERSITY OF THRACE   (Greece)

^b DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Chemical phenomena; Particle ideas; Pupils' explanations

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954510411     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690903173650     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Abraham, M. R., Gizybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W., & Marek, E. A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105-120.
2. Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the under- standing of five chemistry concepts. Journal of research in science teaching, 31(2), 147-165
3. Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 305-316.
4. Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils' conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12-16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53-85.
5. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1269-1298.
6. Boo, H-K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students' (Aged 16-18) conceptu- alizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85, 568-585.
7. Boujaoude, S. B. (1991). A study of the nature of students' understanding about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 689-704.
8. Briggs, H., & Holding, B. (1986). Aspects of secondary students' understanding of elementary ideas in chemistry. Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
9. Brosnan, T., & Reynolds, Y. (2001). Student's explanations of chemical phenomena: macro and micro differences. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(1), 69-78.
10. Calik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005). A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638-667.
11. Cokelez, A., Dumon, A., & Taber, K. S. (2008). Upper secondary French students, chemical transformations and the "Register of models": A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 807-836.
12. Driver, R. (1985). Beyond appearances: The conservation of matter under physical and chemical transformations. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's ideas in science (pp. 145-169). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
13. 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.
14. Greek Pedagogical Institute (1999). National program of study for primary and secondary education: Science. Athens: Greek Pedagogical Institute.
15. Johnson, P. M. (1996). What's a substance? Education in Chemistry, 33, 41-42.
16. Johnson, P. M. (1998). Progression in children's understanding of a 'basic' particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 393-412.
17. Johnson, P. M. (2000). Children's understanding of substances, part 1: Recognizing chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 719-737.
18. Johnson, P. M. (2002). Children's understanding of substances, part 2: Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1037-1054.
19. Johnson, P. M., & Papageorgiou, G. (in press). Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substance-based framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, doi: 10.1002/tea.20296
20. Johnson, P. M., & Roberts, S. P. (2003). Stuff & Substance: Pilot version 1.0. Durham, UK:School of Education / Gatsby Technical Education Projects. (A final version of Stuff & Substance is available from Gatsby Technical Education Products, www.sep.org.uk)
21. Kozma, R., & 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.
22. Liu, X., & Lesniak, K. (2006). Progression in children's understanding of the matter concept from elementary to high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 320-347.
23. Meheut, M., Saltiel, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Pupils' (11-12 year olds) conceptions of combustion. European Journal of Science Education, 7(1), 83-93.
24. Papageorgiou, G., & Johnson, P. M. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils' understanding of phenomena? International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1299-1317.
25. Papageorgiou, G., Johnson, P. M., & Fotiades, F. (2008). Explaining melting and evaporation below boiling point. Can software help with particle ideas? Research in Science and Technological Education, 26(2), 165-183.
26. Posner, C. J., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). The clinical interview and the measurement of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 195-209.
27. Shrank, P., & Kozma, R. (2002). Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 21(3), 253-279.
28. Solsona, N. J., 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.
29. Stains, M., & Talanquer, V. (2007). Classification of chemical substances using particulate repre-sentations of matter: An analysis of student thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 643-661.
30. Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1989). Physical phenomena-Chemical phenomena: Do pupils make the distinction? International Journal of Science Education, 11(1), 83-92.
31. Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1998). Conceptual reorganization and the construction of chem- ical reaction concept during secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 205-221.
32. Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry: Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 12(3), 285-302.
33. 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.
34. Talanquer, V. (2006). Commonsense chemistry: A model for understanding students' alternative conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 811-816.
35. Talanquer, V. (2007). Students' predictions about the sensory properties of chemical compounds: Additive versus emergent frameworks. Science Education, 92, 96-114.
36. Tao, P.-K., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882.
37. Watson, R. (1995). The effect of practical work on students' understanding of combustion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 487-502.