Characteristics and Levels of Sophistication: An Analysis of Chemistry Students' Ability to Think with Mental Models

Research in Science Education

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 561-586

  Wang, Chia Yu ^a   Barrow, Lloyd H ^b  

^a NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemistry; Mental modeling ability; Mental models; Molecular geometry; Molecular polarity

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960570041     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-010-9180-7     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: a better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84, 486-506. doi: 10. 1002/1098-237X(200007)84: 4 486:: AID-SCE4 3. 0. CO; 2-U.
2. Bodner, G. M., & Domin, D. S. (2000). Mental models: the role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24-30. Retrieved from http://chemed. chem. purdue. edu/chemed/bodnergroup/pdf/48_Mental%20Models%20UCEd. pdf.
3. Briggs, M. W. (2004). A cognitive model of second-year organic students' conceptualizations of mental model rotation (Doctoral dissertation). West Lafayette: Purdue University.
4. Briggs, M. W., & Bodner, G. M. (2005). A model of molecular visualization. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 61-73). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10. 1007/1-4020-3613-2_5.
5. Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61-74. Retrieved from http://www. ifets. info/journals/4_1/dori. html.
6. Ferk, V., Vrtacnik, M., Blejec, A., & Gril, A. (2003). Students' understanding of molecular structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1227-1245. doi: 10. 1080/0950069022000038231.
7. Furió, C., & Calatayud, M. L. (1996). Difficulties with the geometry and polarity of molecules. Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 36-41. doi: 10. 1021/ed073p36.
8. Furió, C., Calatayud, M. L., Bárcenas, S. L., & Padilla, O. M. (2000). Functional fixedness and functional reduction as common sense reasonings in chemical equilibrium and in geometry and polarity of molecules. Science Education, 84, 545-565. doi: 10. 1002/1098-237X(200009)84: 5 545:: AID-SCE1 3. 0. CO; 2-1.
9. Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9-27). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10. 1007/1-4020-3613-2_2.
10. Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 3-24). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10. 1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_1.
11. Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2002). Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics. Science Education, 86, 106-121. doi: 10. 1002/sce. 10013.
12. Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 3, 383-396. doi: 10. 1080/0140528810304004.
13. Jang, N. H. (2003). Developing and validating a chemical bonding instrument for Korean high school students (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia: University of Missouri-Columbia.
14. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1365-2729. 1991. tb00230. x.
15. Justi, R., Gilbert, J. K., & Ferreira, P. F. M. (2009). The application of a 'model of modelling' to illustrate the importance of metavisualisation in respect of the three types of representation. In D. F. Treagust & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Multiple representation in chemical education (pp. 285-307). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10. 1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_13.
16. Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91, 877-905. doi: 10. 1002/sce. 20226.
17. Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 284-289. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2008. 12. 010.
18. Marais, P., & Jordaan, F. (2000). Are we taking symbolic language for granted? Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 1355-1357. doi: 10. 1021/ed077p1355.
19. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Nicoll, G. (2003). A qualitative investigation of undergraduate chemistry students' macroscopic interpretations of the submicroscopic structure of molecules. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 205-213. doi: 10. 1021/ed080p205.
21. Papageorgiou, G., & Tsaparlis, G. (2008). Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: the case of basic quantum chemical concepts. Part 2. Students' common errors, misconceptions and difficulties in understanding. Chemical Education: Research and Practice, 9, 332-340. doi: 10. 1039/b818470b.
22. Peterson, R. F., & Treagust, D. F. (1989). Grade-12 students' misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure. Journal of Chemical Education, 66, 459-460. doi: 10. 1021/ed066p459.
23. Peterson, R. F., Treagust, D. F., & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and -12 students' conceptions of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 301-314. doi: 10. 1002/tea. 3660260404.
24. Ramadas, J. (2009). Visual and spatial modes in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 301-318. doi: 10. 1080/09500690802595763.
25. Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 489-506. doi: 10. 1080/095006900289741.
26. Rundgren, C.-J., & Tibell, L. (2009). Critical features of visualizations of transport through the cell membrane: an empirical study of upper secondary and tertiary students' meaning-making of a still image and an animation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10. 1007/s10763-009-9171-1.
27. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 2, 141-156. doi: 10. 1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8 S0959-4752(02)00017-8.
28. Schnotz, W., & Küerschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36, 175-190. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-007-9029-2.
29. Seddon, G. M., Eniaiyejy, P. A., & Chia, L. H. L. (1985). The factor structure for mental rotations of three-dimensional structures represented in diagrams. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4, 29-37. doi: 10. 1080/0263514850030104.
30. Seel, N. M., Ifenthaler, D., & Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2008). Mental models and problem solving: Technological solutions for measurement and assessment of the development of expertise. In P. Blumschein, W. Hung, D. Jonassen, & J. Strobel (Eds.), Model-based approaches to learning: Using systems models and simulations to improve understanding and problem solving in complex domains (pp. 17-40). Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
31. She, H.-C. (2004). Fostering radical conceptual change through dual-situated learning model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 142-164. doi: 10. 1002/tea. 10130.
32. Stieff, M. (2007). Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learning and Instruction, 17, 219-234. doi: 10. 1016/j. learninstruc. 2007. 01. 012.
33. Stieff, M., Bateman, R., & Uttal, D. (2005). Teaching and learning with three-dimensional representations. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 93-121). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10. 1007/1-4020-3613-2_7.
34. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing ground theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
35. Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconception-prevention, diagnosis and cure: Volume II: Classroom resources. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
36. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1353-1368. doi: 10. 1080/0950069032000070306.
37. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2004). Students' understanding of the descriptive and predictive nature of teaching models in organic chemistry. Research in Science Education, 34, 1-20. doi: 10. 1023/B: RISE. 0000020885. 41497. ed.
38. Tuckey, H., Selvaratnam, M., & Bradley, J. (1991). Identification and rectification of student difficulties concerning three-dimensional structures, rotation, and reflection. Journal of Chemical Education, 68, 460-464. doi: 10. 1021/ed068p460.
39. Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81, 387-404. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81: 4 387:: AID-SCE2 3. 0. CO; 2-8.
40. Urhahne, D., Nick, S., & Schanze, S. (2009). The effect of three-dimensional simulations on the understanding of chemical structures and their properties. Research in Science Education, 39, 495-513. doi: 10. 1007/s11165-008-9091-z.
41. Vosniadou, S. (2003). Exploring the relationships between conceptual change and intentional learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Printrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 377-406). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: a psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213-1230. doi: 10. 1080/0950069980201004.
43. Wang, C.-Y. (2007). The role of mental-modeling ability, content knowledge, and mental models in general chemistry students' understanding about molecular polarity (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia: University of Missouri.
44. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: The Falmer Press.
45. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, J. S. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821-842. doi: 10. 1002/tea. 1033.
46. Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465-492. doi: 10. 1002/sce. 10126.
47. Yang, E-m, Andre, T., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2003). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 329-349. doi: 10. 1080/09500690210126784.