Assessing high school chemistry students' modeling sub-skills in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment

Instructional Science

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 69-91

  Dori, Yehudit Judy ^a,b   Kaberman, Zvia ^a  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemistry understanding levels; High school chemistry; Modeling skill; Molecular modeling; Thinking skills; Transfer among representations

Indexed keywords

EID: 83055179494     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-011-9172-7     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Barak, M. & Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students' chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89(1), 117-139.
2. Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (1999). High school chemistry students' performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 257-271.
3. Barnea, N., Dori, Y. J., & Hofstein, A. (2010). Development and implementation of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories: Reforming high school chemistry in Israel. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 218-228.
4. Brosnan, T., & Reynolds, Y. (2001). Students' explanations of chemical phenomena: Macro and micro differences. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19, 69-78.
5. De Jong, O., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8, 947-964.
6. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and the practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications LTD.
7. Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4, 61-74.
8. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 243-279.
9. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems-symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 278-302.
10. Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 219-250.
11. Dori, Y. J., Sasson, I., Kaberman, Z., & Herscovitz, O. (2004). Integrating case-based computerized laboratories into high school chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 9, 1-5.
12. Gabel, D. L. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233-248). London: Kluwer.
13. Gabel, D. L., Briner, D., & Haines, D. (1992). Modeling with magnets-A unified approach to chemistry problem solving. The Science Teacher, 59(3), 58-63.
14. Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D. (1984). Analyzing difficulties with mole concept tasks by using familiar analog tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 843-851.
15. 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). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
16. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. (1998). Learning science through models and modeling. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 53-66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
17. 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.
18. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Conceptual change using multiple interpretive perspectives: Two case studies in secondary school chemistry. Instructional Science, 29, 45-85.
19. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
20. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
21. Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Metacognition in chemical education: Question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science, 37, 403-436.
22. Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translation of representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 883-903.
23. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226.
24. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 105-143.
25. Kozma, R. B., & Russel, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949-968.
26. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming Chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121-145). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
27. Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Crossing levels and representations: The connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 224-242.
28. Levy Nahum, T., Mamlok-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, 1-26.
29. 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.
30. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi Study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720.
31. Robinson, W. R. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 978-983.
32. Russell, J., & Kozma, R. (2005). Assessing learning from the use of multimedia chemical visualization software. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 299-332). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
33. Sanger, M. J., Brecheisen, D. M., & Hynek, B. M. (2001). Can computer animations affect college biology students' conceptions about diffusion and osmosis? American Biology Teacher, 63, 104-109.
34. Sasson, I., & Dori, Y. J. (2006). Fostering near and far transfer in the chemistry case-based laboratory environment. In G. Clarebout & J. Elen (Eds.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: Advance in studying and designing powerful (computer-based) learning environments (pp. 275-286). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
35. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: Visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36, 175-190.
36. Small, M. Y., & Morton, M. E. (1983). Research in college science teaching: Spatial visualization training improves performances in organic chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 13, 41-43.
37. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38. Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821-842.
39. Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465-492.
40. Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students' learning and teachers' professional development. New York: Springer.