Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 687-715

  Stevens, Shawn Y ^a   Delgado, César ^a   Krajcik, Joseph S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Integrated knowledge; Learning progression; Qualitative; Secondary; Undergraduate

Indexed keywords

ATOMIC SCALE; ATOMIC STRUCTURE; CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING; ELECTRICAL FORCE; EMPIRICAL DATA; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY; KNOWLEDGE LEARNING; KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES; LOW LEVEL; NANOSCALE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING; PERIODIC TABLE; TRADITIONAL SCIENCE;

MODELS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 77954945683     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20324     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Atkins, P., & Jones, L. (1997). Chemistry: Molecules, matter, and change (3rd ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
3. Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
4. Baroody, A.J., Cibulskis, M., Lai, M.-l., & Li, X. (2004). Comments on the use of learning trajectories in curriculum development and research. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 227-260.
5. Ben-Zvi, N., & Genut, S. (1998). Uses and limitations of scientific models: The Periodic Table as an inductive tool. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 351-360.
6. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
7. Caravita, S., & Hallden, O. (1994). Re-framing the problem of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 89-111.
8. Cervellati, R., & Perugini, D. (1981). The understanding of the atomic orbital concept by Italian high school students. Journal of Chemical Education, 58(7), 568-569.
9. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152.
10. Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81-89.
11. Cokelez, A., & Dumon, A. (2005). Atom and molecule: Upper secondary school French students' representations in long-term memory. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 6(3), 119-135.
12. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
13. Coll, R.K., & Treagust, D.F. (2001). Learners' mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357-382.
14. de Vos, W., & Verdonk, A.H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science education and in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 657-664.
15. diSessa, A.A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In: G. Forman & P.B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1999). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.
17. Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber H.A., Shouse A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
18. Fischler, H., & Lichtfeld, M. (1992). Modern physics and students' conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 181-190.
19. Franco, A.G., & Taber, K. (in press). Secondarystudents' thinking aboutfamiliarphenomena: Learners' explanations from a curriculum context where 'particles' is a key idea for organising teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education.
20. Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2009). Enhancing students' understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 289-310.
21. Gravemeijer, K. (2004). Local instruction theories as means of support for teachers in reform mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 105-128.
22. Griffiths, A.K., & Preston, K.R. (1992). Grade-12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628.
23. Guttman, L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 9(2), 139-150.
24. 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.
25. Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In: J.K. Gilbert, O.D. Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust, & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189-212). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26. Ireson, G. (2000). The quantum understanding of pre-university physics students. Physics Education, 35(1), 15-21.
27. Johnson, P. (2000). Children's understanding of substances. Part 1: Recognizing chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 719-737.
28. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Models and modelling in chemical education. In: J.K. Gilbert, O.D. Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust, & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47-67). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29. Kalkanis, G., Hadzidaki, P., & Stavrou, D. (2003). An instructional model for a radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics concepts. Science Education, 87, 257-280.
30. Ke, J.-L., Monk, M., & Duschl, R. (2005). Learning introductory quantum physics: Sensori-motor experiences and mental models. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1571-1594.
31. Kedisou, S., & Roseman, J.E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.
32. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K.L., & Reiser, B.J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
33. Krajcik, J., Shin, N., Stevens, S.Y., & Short, H. (April, 2009). Using Learning Progressions to Inform the Design of Coherent Science Curriculum Materials. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
34. Lee, K.-W.L., & Tan, S.-N. (2004). Atoms and molecules: Do they have a place in primary science? Primary Science Review, 82, 21-23.
35. Levy Nahum, T., Mamlock-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Developing a new teaching approach for the chemical bonding concept aligned with current scientific and pedagogical knowledge. Science Education, 91, 579-603.
36. Linn, M.C., Eylon, B.-S., & Davis, E.A. (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In: M.C. Linn, E.A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 29-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Margel, H., Eylon, B.-S., & Scherz, Z. (2008). A longitudinal study of junior high school students' conceptions of the structure of materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 132-152.
38. McKagan, S.B., Perkins, K.K., & Wieman, C.E. (2008). Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 4(1), 010103.
39. McNemar, Q. (1947). Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika, 12, 153-157.
40. Merritt, J., Krajcik, J., & Shwartz, Y. (June, 2008). Development of a Learning Progression for the Particle Model of Matter. Paper presented at the International Conference for the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, Netherlands.
41. Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students knowledge and relevant instruction. In: R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Proceedings of an International Workshop - Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies (pp. 110-128). Kiel, Germany: The Institute for Science Education (IPN).
42. Mislevy, R.J., & Riconscente, M. (2005). Evidence-centered assessment design: Layers, structures, and terminology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
43. Mislevy, R.J., Steinberg, L.S., Almond, R.G., Haertel, G.D., & Penuel, W.R. (2003). Leverage points for improving educational assessment. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
44. Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C.W. (in press). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
45. Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191-196.
46. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
47. Niaz, M. (1998). From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: A rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Science Education, 82, 527-552.
48. Olsen, R.V. (2002). Introducing quantum mechanics in the upper secondary school: A study in Norway. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 565-574.
49. Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50. Pellegrino, J., Krajcik, J., Stevens, S.Y, Shin, N., Delgado, C., Geier, S., and members of the NCLT. (2008). Using Construct-Centered Design to align curriculum, instruction, and assessment development in emerging science. In: G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P.A. Kirschner, & F. Prins (Eds.), Proceedings from ICLS '08: International perspectives in the learning sciences: Creating a learning world (Vol. 3, pp. 314-321). Utrecht, Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Poster 2: Shin, N., Shawn, S.Y., Pellegrino, J., Krajcik, J.S., & Geier, S. Construct-centered design.
51. Pellegrino, J., Krajcik, J., Shipley, E., Lopez Silva, B., Daly, S., Wischow, E., Moher, T., and members of the NCLT. (2008). Using Construct-Centered Design to align curriculum, instruction, and assessment development in emerging science. In: G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P.A. Kirschner, & F. Prins (Eds.), Proceedings from ICLS ' 08: International perspectives in the learning sciences: Creating a learning world (Vol. 3, pp. 314-321). Utrecht, Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Poster 6: Shipley, E., Lopez Silva, B., Daly, S., Wischow, E., Moher, T., & Pellegrino, J.W. Using construct-centered design to revise instruction and assessment in a nanoscale self-assembly design activity: A case study.
52. Petri, J., & Niedderer, H. (1998). A learning pathway in high-school level quantum atomic physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1075-1088.
53. Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget's theory. In: P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
54. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2005). The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Retrieved from http://www.nano-and-society.org/NELSI/entity/us-govt/NNI.html on December 20, 2008.
55. Renström, L., Andersson, B., & Marton, F. (1990). Students' Conceptions of Matter. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 555-569.
56. Resnick, L.B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220, 477-478.
57. Roseman, J.E., Linn, M.C., &Koppal, M. (2008). Characterizing curriculum coherence. In: Y. Kali, M.C. Linn, &J.E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education. NY, NY: Teacher College Press.
58. Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., & McKnight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559.
59. Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2008). The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 199-219.
60. Shiland, T.W. (1997). Quantum mechanics and conceptual change in high school chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 535-545.
61. Simon, M.A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145.
62. Simon, M.A., &Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 91-104.
63. Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(2), 2-20.
64. Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4, 1-98.
65. Stanitski, C.L., Eubanks, L.P., Middlecamp, C.H., & Stratton, W.J. (2000). Chemistry in context: Applying chemistry to society (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
66. Stefani, C., & Tsaparlis, G. (2009). Students' levels of explanations, models, and misconceptions in basic quantum chemistry: A phenomenographic study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 520-536.
67. Stevens, S.Y., Shin, N., Delgado, C., Krajcik, J.S., & Pellegrino, J. (April, 2007). Using Learning Progressions to Inform Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Design. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
68. Stevens, S.Y., Shin, N., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J.S. (April, 2007). Developing a Learning Progression for the Nature of Matter as it Relates to Nanoscience. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
69. Stevens, S.Y., Sutherland, L.M., & Krajcik, J.S. (in press). The big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering: A guidebook for secondary teachers. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
70. Taber, K.S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597-608.
71. Taber, K.S. (2000). Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 399-417.
72. 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.
73. Taber, K.S. (2001b). When the analogy breaks down: Modelling the atom on the solar system. Physics Education, 36(3), 222-226.
74. Taber, K.S. (2002). Conceptualizing quanta: Illuminating the ground state of student understanding of atomic orbitals. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 145-158.
75. Taber, K.S. (2004). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89, 94-116.
76. Taber, K.S., & Coll, R.K. (2002). Bonding. In: J.K. Gilbert, O.D. Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust, & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 213-234). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
77. Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic and molecular structure in chemical education: A critical analysis from various perspectives of science education. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(8), 922-925.
78. Tsaparlis, G., & Papaphotis, G. (2002). Quantum-chemical concepts: Are they suitable for secondary students? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 129-144.
79. Treagust, D.F., Harrison, A.G., & Venville, G.J. (1996). Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 213-229.
80. Uebersax, J.S., (2006). MH Program (Version 1.2) [Computer software]. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ jsuebersax/mh.htm.
81. Unal, R., & Zollman, D. (1999) Students' description of an atom: A phenomenographic analysis. Downloaded from http://perg.phys.ksu.edu/papers/vqm/ AtomModels.pdf.
82. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.