Exploring conceptual frameworks of models of atomic structures and periodic variations, chemical bonding, and molecular shape and polarity: A comparison of undergraduate general chemistry students with high and low levels of content knowledge

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 130-146

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

^a NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872547671     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c2rp20116j     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bodner G. M. and Domin D. S., (2000), Mental models: The role of representations in problem solving in chemistry, University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24-30.
2. Chang R., (2005), Chemistry (8th ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
3. Chi M. T. H., (2008), Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift, In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61-82), NY: Routledge.
4. Clark D. B., D'Angelo C. M. and Schleigh S. P., (2011), Comparison of students' knowledge structure coherence and understanding of force in the Philippines, Turkey, China, Mexico, and the United States, J. Learn. Sci., 20, 207-261.
5. Cokelez A. and Dumon A., (2005), Atom and molecule: Upper secondary school French students' representations in long-term memory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 6, 119-135. (Pubitemid 41545354)
6. Coll R. K. and Treagust D. F., (2001), Learners' mental models of chemical bonding, Res. Sci. Educ., 31, 357-382. (Pubitemid 33810161)
7. College Board., (2009), College board standards for college success: Science, New York: The College Board.
8. diSessa A. A., (1993), Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognition Instruct., 10, 105-225.
9. Ferguson R. L., (2007), Constructivism and social constructivism, In M. Orgill and G. M. Bodner (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for reserch in chemistry/science education (pp. 27-48), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10. Furió C. and Calatayud M. L., (1996), Difficulties with the geometry and polarity of molecules: Beyond misconceptions, J. Chem. Educ., 73, 36-41. (Pubitemid 126539184)
11. Furió C., Calatayud M. L., Bárcenas S. L. and Padilla O. M., (2000), Functional fixedness and functional reduction as common sense reasonings in chemical equilibrium and in geometry and polarity of molecules, Sci. Educ., 84, 545-565.
12. Gupta A., Hammer D. and Redish E. F., (2010), The case for dynamic models of learners' ontologies in physics, J. Learn. Sci., 19, 285-321.
13. Jang N. H., (2003), Developing and validating a chemical bonding instrument for Korean high school students, doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.
14. Jones M. G., Carter G. and Rua M. J., (2000), Exploring the development of conceptual ecologies: Communities of concepts related to convection and heat, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 37, 139-159.
15. Marais P. and Jordaan F., (2000), Are we taking symbolic language for granted? J. Chem. Educ., 77, 1355-1357.
16. Mortimer E. F., (1995), Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science & Education, 4, 267-285.
17. Nicoll G., (2001), A report of undergraduates' bonding misconceptions, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 23, 707-730. (Pubitemid 33595638)
18. Novak J. D., (2002), Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositonal hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners, Sci. Educ., 86, 548-571. (Pubitemid 37230319)
19. Park E. J. and Light G., (2008), Identifying atomic structure as a threshold concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31, 233-258.
20. Patton M. Q., (2002), Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
21. Peterson R. F. and Treagust D. F., (1989), Grade-12 students' misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure, J. Chem. Educ., 66, 459-460.
22. Peterson R. F., Treagust D. F. and 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, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 26, 301-314.
23. Posner G. J., Strike K. A., Hewson P. W. and Gertzog W. A., (1982), Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change, Sci. Educ., 66, 211-227.
24. Shane J. W. and Bodner G. M., (2006), General chemistry students' understanding of structure-function relationships, Chemical Educator, 11, 130-137.
25. She H.-C., (2004), Fostering radical conceptual change through dual-situated learning model, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 41, 142-164.
26. Stevens S. Y., Delgado C. and Krajcik J. S., (2010), Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 47, 687-715.
27. Strauss A. and Corbin J., (1998), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
28. Taber K. S., (1998), The sharing-out of nuclear attraction: or 'I can't think about physics in chemistry', Int. J. Sci. Educ., 20, 1001-1014. (Pubitemid 128692398)
29. Taber K. S., (2000), Case studies and generalizability: Grounded theory and research in science education, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 22, 469-487.
30. Taber K. S., (2002), Chemical misconception - Prevention, diagnosis and cure: Volume I: Theoretical background, London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
31. Taber K. S., (2003a), Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learner's prior learning, Sci. Educ., 87, 732-758.
32. Taber K. S., (2003b), Understanding ionisation energy: Physical, chemical, and alternative conceptions, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 4, 149-169.
33. Taber K. S., (2005), Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas, Sci. Educ., 89, 94-116. (Pubitemid 40132030)
34. Talanquer V., (2006), Commonsense chemistry: A model for understanding student's alternative conceptions, J. Chem. Educ., 83, 811-816.
35. Talanquer V., (2007), Explanations and teleology in chemistry education, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 29, 853-870.
36. Talanquer V., (2009), On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: The case of "structure of matter", Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31, 2123-2136.
37. Tan K.-C. D., Taber K. S., Goh N.-K. and Chia L.-S., (2005), The ionisation energy instrument: A two-tier multiplechoice instrument to determine high school students' understanding of ionisation energy, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 6, 180-197. (Pubitemid 41596798)
38. Vosniadou S., (1994), Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change, Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
39. 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, University of Missouri-Columbia.
40. Wang C.-Y. and Barrow L. H., (2011), Characteristics and levels of sophistication: An analysis of chemistry students' ability to think with mental models, Res. Sci. Educ., 41, 561-586.
41. White R. T. and gunstone R. F., (1992), Probing understanding, New York: The Falmer Press.