Students' understanding of mathematical expressions in physical chemistry contexts: An analysis using Sherin's symbolic forms

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 209-220

  Becker, Nicole ^a   Towns, Marcy ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873527496     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c2rp00003b     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Airey J. and Linder C., (2008), A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46(1), 27-49.
2. Cui L., Rebello N. S. and Bennett A. G., (2007), Assessing college students' transfer of learning from calculus to physics using non-traditional problems. Paper presented at the NARST 2007 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
3. diSessa A. A., (1993), Toward and epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instruct., 10(2 and 3), 105-225.
4. Greenbowe T. J. and Meltzer D. E., (2003), Student learning of thermochemical concepts in the context of solution calorimetry, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25, 779-800.
5. Grundmeier T. A., Hansen J. and Sousa E., (2006), An exploration of definition and procedural fluency in integral calculus, PRIMUS, 162178-191.
6. Hadfield L. C. and Wieman C. E., (2010), Student interpretations of equations related to the first law of thermodynamics, J. Chem. Educ., 87, 750-755.
7. Hammer D., Elby A., Scherr R. E. and Redish E. F., (2005), Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
8. Jasien P. G. and Oberem G. E., (2002), Understanding of elementary concepts in heat and temperature among college students and K-12 teachers, J. Chem. Educ., 79, 889-895.
9. Klymkowsky M. W., (2011), Collaborative Research: Creating a common thermodynamics: NSF TUES Type 2 Project (DUE 1122896)
10. Kozma R. B., Chin C., Osborne J., Russell J. and Marx N., (2000), The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning, J. Learn. Sci., 9, 102-143.
11. Kozma R. B. and Russell J., (1997), Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 34, 949-968.
12. Latour B. and Woolgar S., (1979), Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
13. Lunsford E., Melear C. T., Roth W.-M. and Hickok L. G., (2007), Proliferation of inscriptions and transformations among preservice science teachers engaged in authentic science, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 44, 538-564.
14. Meredith D. C. and Marrongelle K. A., (2008), How students use mathematical resources in an electrostatics context, Am. J. Phys., 76, 570-578.
15. Moog R. S. and Spencer J. N., (2008), POGIL: An overview. In R. S. Moog & J. N. Spencer (ed.), Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
16. Orton A., (1983a), Students' understanding of differentiation, Educ. Stud. Math., 14, 235-250.
17. Orton A., (1983b), Students' understanding of integration, Educ. Stud. Math., 14, 1-18.
18. Rebello N. S. Zollman D. A. and Allbaugh A. R., (2005), Dynamic Transfer: A perspective from physics education research. In J. P. Mestre (ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
19. Redish E. F., (2004), A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. F. Redish and M. Vincentini (ed.), Research on physics education (pp. 1-63). Bologna/ Amsterdam: Italian Physical Society/IOS Press.
20. Roth W.-M. and McGinn M. K., (1998), Inscriptions: Towards a theory of representing as social practice, Rev. Educ. Res., 68, 35-59.
21. Sherin B. L, (2001), How students understand physics equations, Cognit. Instruct., 19, 479-541.
22. Thomas P. L. and Schwenz R. W, (1998), College physical chemistry students' conceptions of equilibrium and fundamental thermodynamics, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 35, 1151-1191.
23. Thompson J. R., Bucy B. R. and Mountcastle, D. B., (2005), Assessing student understanding of partial derivatives in thermodynamics. Paper presented at the Physics Education Research Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.
24. Towns M. H. and Grant E., (1997), "I believe I will go out of this class actually knowing something": Cooperative learning activities in physical chemistry, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 34, 819-835.
25. Tuminaro J., (2004), A cognitive framework for analyzing and describing introductory students' use and understanding of mathematics in physics. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
26. Yeatts F. R. and Hundhausen J. R., (1992), Calculus and physics: Challenges at the interface, Am. J. Phys., 60, 716-721.
27. Zandieh M. J., (2000), A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. In E. Dubinsky A. H. Shoenfeld. and J. Kaput (ed.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, IV (Vol. 8, pp. 103-127). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.