Understanding Chemical Change in Primary Education: The Effect of Two Cognitive Variables

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 177-197

  Stamovlasis, Dimitrios ^a   Papageorgiou, George ^b  

^a ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

^b DEMOCRITUS UNIVERSITY OF THRACE   (Greece)

Author keywords

Analysis of variance; Chemical changes; Combustion; Field dependence field independence; Logical thinking; Multiple regression analysis; Primary education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858751785     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-011-9255-y     Document Type: Article

References (72)

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, 105-120.
2. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994). Really raising standards: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London: Routledge.
3. Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 305-316.
4. Anderson, T. W. (1984). An introduction to multivariate analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
5. Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils' conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12-16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53-85.
6. Boujaoude, S. B. (1991). A study of the nature of students' understanding about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 689-704.
7. BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationships between selective cognitive variables and students' ability to solve chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 63-84.
8. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1990). Quantitative data analysis for social scientists. London: Routledge.
9. 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, 638-667.
10. Cantu, L. L., & Herron, J. D. (1978a). Concrete and formal Piagetian stages and science concept attainment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 413-419.
11. Cantu, L. L., & Herron, J. D. (1978b). Concrete and formal Piagetian stages and science concept attainment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 413-419.
12. Chandran, S., Treagust, D. F., & Tobin, K. (1987). The role of cognitive factors in chemistry achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 145-160.
13. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change in and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 129-160). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
14. 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, 807-836.
15. Cook, R., & Weisberg, S. (1982). Residuals and influence in regression. New York: Chapman and Hall.
16. Danili, E., & Reid, N. (2004). Some strategies to improve performance in school chemistry, based on two cognitive factors. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22, 201-223.
17. Danili, E., & Reid, N. (2006). Cognitive factors that can potentially affect pupils' test performance. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 64-83.
18. 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.
19. diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843-900.
20. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
21. Friedenberg, J. (2009). Dynamical psychology: Complexity, self-organization and mind. USA: ISCE.
22. Greek Pedagogical Institute. (2003). National program of study for primary and secondary education: Science. Athens: Greek Pedagogical Institute.
23. Howe, A., & Durr, B. (1982). Using concrete materials and peer interaction to enhance learning in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 225-232.
24. Johnson, P. M. (2000). Children's understanding of substances. Part 1. Recognizing chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 719-737.
25. Johnson, P. M. (2002). Children's understanding of substances. Part 2. Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1037-1054.
26. Johnson, M. A., & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 89-103.
27. Johnson, P. M., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introduction of particle ideas: A substance-based framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 130-150.
28. Johnstone, A. H., & Al-Naeme, F. F. (1991). Room for scientific thought? International Journal of Science Education, 13, 187-192.
29. Johnstone, A. H., & Al-Naeme, F. F. (1995). Filling a curriculum gap in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 219-232.
30. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T., & Koh, H. (2005). The influence of students' cognitive and motivational variables in respect of cognitive conflict and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1037-1058.
31. Lawson, A. E. (1978). Development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 11-24.
32. Lawson, A. E. (1982). Formal reasoning, achievement, and intelligence: An issue of importance. Science Education, 66, 77-83.
33. Lawson, A. E. (1983). Predicting science achievement: The role of developmental level, disembedding ability, mental capacity, prior knowledge, and beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 117-129.
34. Lawson, A. E. (1985). A review of research on formal reasoning and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 569-617.
35. Lawson, A. E. (1993). Classroom test of scientific reasoning: Revised paper-pencil edition. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
36. Lawson, A. E., & Renner, J. W. (1975). Relationship of science subject matter and developmental levels of learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 347-358.
37. Lawson, A. E., & Thompson, L. D. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 733-746.
38. 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, 320-347.
39. Meheut, M., Saltiel, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Pupils' (11-12 year olds) conceptions of combustion. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 83-93.
40. Metz, K. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93-127.
41. Niaz, M. (1996). Reasoning strategies of students in solving chemistry problems as a function of developmental level, functional M-capacity and disembedding ability. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 525-541.
42. Papageorgiou, G., & Johnson, P. M. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils' understanding of phenomena? International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1299-1317.
43. Papageorgiou, G., Johnson, P. M., & Fotiades, F. (2008). Explaining melting and evaporation below boiling point. Can software help particle ideas? Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 165-183.
44. Papageorgiou, G., Grammaticopoulou, M., & Johnson, P. M. (2010a). Should we teach primary pupils about chemical change? International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1647-1664.
45. Papageorgiou, G., Stamovlasis, D., & Johnson, P. M. (2010b). Primary teachers' particle ideas and explanations of physical phenomena: The effect of an in-service training course. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 629-652.
46. Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget's developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 32, 301-345.
47. Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton.
48. Sayre, S., & Ball, D. W. (1975). Piagetian cognitive development and achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 165-174.
49. Skamp, K. (1999). Are atoms and molecules too difficult for primary education? School Science Review, 81(295), 87-96.
50. 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, 3-12.
51. Stamovlasis, D. (2006). The nonlinear dynamical hypothesis in science education problem solving: A catastrophe theory approach. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Science, 10, 37-70.
52. Stamovlasis, D. (2010). Methodological and epistemological issues on linear regression applied to psychometric variables in problem solving: Rethinking variance. Chemistry Education, Research and Practice, 11, 59-68.
53. Stamovlasis, D. (2011). Nonlinear dynamics and neo-Piagetian theories in problem solving: Perspectives on a new epistemology and theory development. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Science, 2, 145-173.
54. Stamovlasis, D., & Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Cognitive variables in problem solving: A nonlinear approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 7-32.
55. Stamovlasis, D., Tsitsipis, G., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). The effect of logical thinking and cognitive styles on understanding the structure of matter: An analysis with the random walk method. Chemistry Education, Research and Practice, 11, 173-181.
56. Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1989). Physical phenomena-chemical phenomena: Do pupils make the distinction? International Journal of Science Education, 11, 83-92.
57. Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1998). Conceptual reorganization and the construction of chemical reaction concept during secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 205-221.
58. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Tinajero, C., & Paramo, F. M. (1998). Field dependence-independence cognitive style and academic achievement: A review of research and theory. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 227-251.
60. Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Non-algorithmic quantitative problem solving in university physical chemistry: A correlation study of the role of selective cognitive factors. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23, 125-148.
61. Tsaparlis, G., & Angelopoulos, V. (2000). A model of problem solving: Its operation, validity and usefulness in the case of organic-synthesis problems. Science Education, 84, 131-153.
62. Tsitsipis, G., Stamovlasis, D., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). The effect of three cognitive variables on students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its changes of state. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 987-1016.
63. Tsitsipis, G., Stamovlasis, D., & Papageorgiou, G. (2011). A probabilistic model for students' errors and misconceptions in relation to three cognitive variables. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, (in press).
64. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth. A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585.
65. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123-183.
66. Watson, R. (1995). The effect of practical work on students' understanding of combustion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 487-502.
67. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity consistent covariance matrix and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817-838.
68. Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205-239). New York: Routledge.
69. Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. International University Press: New York.
70. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and fieldindependent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1-64.
71. Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E. & Karp, S. A. (1971). Embedded figures test, children's embedded figures test, group embedded figures test: Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
72. Zeitoun, H. H. (1989). The relationship between abstract concept achievement and prior knowledge, formal reasoning ability and gender. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 227-234.