Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 10-23

  Sevian, Hannah ^a   Talanquer, Vicente ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^b University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893415250     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c3rp00111c     Document Type: Review

References (103)

1. Alonzo A. and Steedle J. T., (2009), Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression, Sci. Educ., 93 (3), 389-421
2. Andersson B., (1986), The experimental gestalt of causation: a common core to pupils' preconceptions in science, Eur. J. Sci. Educ., 8 (2), 155-171
3. Andersson B., (1990), Pupils' conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12-16), Stud. Sci. Educ., 18, 53-85
4. Atkins P. and de Paula J., (2006), Physical Chemistry, 8th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press
5. Au K. T., (1994), Developing an intuitive understanding of substance kinds, Cognitive Psychol., 27, 7-111
6. Bensaude-Vincent B. and Simon J., (2008), Chemistry: the impure science, London: Imperial College Press
7. Berland L. K. and McNeill K. L., (2010), A learning progression for scientific argumentation: understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts, Sci. Educ., 94, 765-793
8. Bernholt S. and Parchmann I., (2011), Assessing the complexity of students' knowledge in chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12, 167-173
9. Bhattacharyya G. and Bodner G. M., (2005), It gets me to the product: how students propose organic mechanisms, J. Chem. Educ., 82, 1402-1407
10. Biggs J. B. and Collis K. F., (1982), Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome), New York: Academic Press
11. Breslow R., (1997), Chemistry today and tomorrow: the central, useful, and creative science, Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society
12. Brown D. E. and Hammer D., (2008), Conceptual change in physics, in Vosniadou S. (ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change, New York: Routledge, pp. 127-154
13. Brown N. J. S., Nagashima S. O., Fu A., Timms M. and Wilson M., (2010), A framework for analyzing scientific reasoning in assessments, Educational Assessment, 15 (3), 142-174
14. Bulte A. M. W., Westbroek H. B., De Jong O. and Pilot A., (2006), A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28 (10), 1063-1086
15. Bybee R. W., (1987), Science Education and the Science-Technology-Society (S-T-S) Theme, Sci. Educ., 71 (5), 667-683
16. Bybee R., (1997), Achieving scientific literacy, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
17. Bybee R., Taylor J. A., Gardner A., Van Scotter P., Carlson J., Westbrook A. and Landes N., (2006), The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins and effectiveness, Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS
18. Carroll F. A., (1998), Perspectives on structure and mechanism in organic chemistry, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
19. Chamizo J. A., (2013), Technochemistry: one of the chemists' ways of knowing, Found. Chem., 15, 157-170
20. Chi M. T. H., (2005), Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust, J. Learn. Sci., 14 (2), 161-199
21. Chi M. T. H., (2008), Three kinds of conceptual change: belief revision, mental model transformation, and ontological shift, in Vosniadou S. (ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change, New York: Routledge, pp. 61-82
22. Claesgens J., Scalise K., Wilson M. and Stacy A., (2009), Mapping student understanding in chemistry: the perspectives of chemists, Sci. Educ., 93, 56-85
23. Cooper M. M., Corley L. M. and Underwood S. M., (2013), An investigation of college chemistry students' understanding of structure-property relationships, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 50 (6), 699-721
24. Cooper M. M., Underwood S. M., Hilley C. Z. and Klymkowsky M. W., (2012), Development and assessment of a molecular structure and properties learning progression, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 1351-1357
25. Corcoran T., Mosher F. A. and Rogat A., (2009), Learning progressions in science: an evidence-based approach to reform, Consortium for Policy Research in Education Report #RR-63. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education
26. diSessa A. A., (1993), Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognition Instruct., 10, 165-255
27. diSessa A. A., (2008), A bird's eye view of the 'pieces' versus 'coherence' controversy (from the 'pieces' side of the fence), in Vosniadou S. (ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change, New York: Routledge, pp. 35-60
28. Dugger W. E., (2001), Standards for technological literacy, Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 513-517
29. Duncan R. G. and Rivet A. E., (2013), Science learning progressions, Science, 339 (6118), 396-297
30. Duncan R. G., Rogat A. and Yarden, A., (2009), A learning progression for deepening students' understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46, 655-674
31. Duschl R., Maeng S. and Sezen A., (2011), Learning progressions and teaching sequences: a review and analysis, Stud. Sci. Educ., 47 (2), 123-182
32. Eilks E., Rauch F., Ralle B. and Hofstein A., (2013), How to allocate the chemistry curriculum between science and society, in Eilks I. and Hofstein A. (ed.), Teaching chemistry-a studybook, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers
33. Eisenkraft E., (2003), Expanding the 5E model, Sci. Teach., 70 (6), 56-59
34. Enke C. G., (2001), The art and science of chemical analysis, New York, NY: Wiley
35. French M., (1999), Conceptual design for engineers, London: Springer
36. Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D. (ed.), (2009), Multiple representations in chemical education, The Netherlands: Springer
37. Gilbert J. K., De Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. and van Driel J. (ed.), (2002), Chemical education: towards research-based practice, Dordrecht: Kluwer
38. Grotzer T. A., (2003), Learning to understand the forms of causality implicit in scientifically accepted explanations, Stud. Sci. Educ., 39, 1-74
39. Hesse J. J. and Anderson C. W., (1992), Students' conceptions of chemical change, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 29 (3), 277-299
40. Hoffmann R., (1993), How should chemists think? Sci. Am., 268 (2), 66-73
41. Johnson P., (2000), Children's understanding of substances, part 1: recognizing chemical change, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 22 (7), 719-737
42. Johnson P., (2002), Children's understanding of substances, part 2: explaining chemical change, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 24 (10), 1037-1054
43. Johnson P. and Tymms P., (2011), The emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 8 (8), 849-877
44. Kahan D. M., Jenkins-Smith H. and Braman D., (2011), Cultural cognition of scientific consensus, J. Risk Res., 14, 147-174
45. Kind V., (2004), Beyond appearances: students' misconceptions about basic chemical ideas, 2nd edn, London: Royal Society of Chemistry
46. King D., (2012), New perspectives on context-based chemistry education: using a dialectical sociocultural approach to view teaching and learning, Stud. Sci. Educ., 48 (1), 51-87
47. Lacy S., Tobin R., Wiser M. and Crissman S., (2012), Looking through the energy lens: a proposed learning progression for energy in grades 3-5, Paper presented at the Energy Summit, 2012, http://esummit-msu.net/content/looking- through-energy-lens-proposed-learning-progression-energy-grades-3-5, accessed on August 27, 2013
48. Lehrer R. and Schauble L., (2012), Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations, Sci. Educ., 96 (4), 701-724
49. Levy S. T. and Wilensky U., (2009), Crossing levels and representations: the connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 18 (3), 224-242
50. Liu X. and Lesniak K., (2005), Students' progression of understanding the matter concept from elementary to high school, Sci. Educ., 89 (3), 433-450
51. Maeyer J. and Talanquer V., (2010), The role of heuristics in students thinking: ranking of chemical substances, Sci. Educ., 94 (6), 963-984
52. Maeyer J. and Talanquer V., (2013), Making predictions about chemical reactivity: assumptions and heuristics, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 50 (6), 748-767
53. Mohan L., Chen J. and Anderson C. W., (2009), Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46 (6), 675-698
54. National Research Council (NRC), (1996), The national science education standards, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press
55. National Research Council (NRC), (2001), Knowing what students know: the science and design of educational assessment, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press
56. National Research Council (NRC), (2003), Beyond the molecular frontier: challenges for chemistry and chemical engineering, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press
57. National Research Council (NRC), (2007), Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press
58. National Research Council (NRC), (2011), A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press
59. National Research Council (NRC), (2013), The next generation science standards, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press
60. Osborne J. F. and Dillon J., (2008), Science Education in Europe, London: Nuffield Foundation
61. Padilla M. J., (1986), The science process skills, Research matters...to the science teacher, Archived by NARST as No. 9004, March 1, 1990, http://www.narst.org/publications/research/skill.cfm, accessed on August 1, 2013
62. Padilla M., Okey J. and Dillashaw F., (1983), The relationship between science process skills and formal thinking abilities, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 20 (3), 239-246
63. Redish E. F., (2004), A theoretical framework for physics education research: modeling student thinking, in Redish E. F. and Vicentini M. (ed.), Proceedings of the International School of Physics, "Enrico Fermi" Course CLVI, Amsterdam: IOS Press
64. Rozin P., (2005), The meaning of natural, Psychol. Sci., 16 (8), 652-658
65. Sadler T. D. and Donnelly L. A., (2006), Socio-scientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28, 1463-1488
66. Sadler T. D. and Fowler S., (2006), A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socio-scientific argumentation, Sci. Educ., 90, 986-1004
67. Schecker H. and Parchmann I., (2007), Standards and competence models: The German situation, in Waddington D., Nentwig P. and Schanze S. (ed.), Standards in science education, Münster, Germany: Waxmann, pp. 147-164
68. Schwartz A. T., (2006), Contextualized chemistry education: the American experience, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28, 977-998
69. Sevian H. and Stains M. N., (2013), Implicit assumptions and progress variables in a learning progression about structure and motion of matter, in Tsaparlis G. and Sevian H. (ed.), Concepts of matter in science education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 69-94
70. Sikorski T. F. and Hammer D., (2010), A critique of how learning progressions research conceptualizes sophistication and progress, in Gomez K., Lyons L. and Radinsky J. (ed.), Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 1032-1039
71. Sjöström J., (2013), Towards Bildung-oriented chemistry education, Sci. & Educ., 22 (7), 1873-1890
72. Slovic P., Finucane M., Peters E. and MacGregor D. G., (2003), The affect heuristic, in Gilovich T., Griffin D. and Kahneman D. (ed.), Intuitive judgment: heuristics and biases, Cambridge University Press, pp. 397-420
73. Smith C., Carey S. and Wiser M., (1985), On differentiation: a case study of the development of size, weight, and density, Cognition, 21, 177-237
74. Smith C., Wiser M., Anderson C. and Krajcik J., (2006), Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: a proposed learning progression for matter and atomic-molecular theory, Measurement, 14 (1&2), 1-98
75. Smith C. L., Wiser M. and Carraher D. W., (2010), Using a comparative, longitudinal study with upper elementary school students to test some assumptions of a learning progression for matter, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA
76. Solomon J., (1996), Teaching science, technology and society: developing science and technology series, Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis
77. Spelke E. S. and Kinzler K. D., (2007), Core knowledge, Dev. Sci., 10, 89-96
78. Stains M. N. and Sevian H., (2013), Uncovering implicit assumptions: a large-scale study on students' mental models of diffusion, J. Learn. Sci., under review
79. Stevens S., 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
80. Taber K., (2009), College students' conceptions of chemical stability: the widespread adoption of a heuristic rule out of context and beyond its range of application, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31 (10), 1333-1358
81. Taber K. S., (2013), A common core to chemical conceptions: learners' conceptions of chemical stability, change and bonding, in Tsaparlis G. and Sevian H. (ed.), Concepts of matter in science education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 391-418
82. Taber K. S. and García-Franco A., (2010), Learning processes in chemistry: drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter, J. Learn. Sci., 19 (1), 99-142
83. Talanquer V., (2006), Common sense chemistry: a model for understanding students' alternative conceptions, J. Chem. Educ., 83 (5), 811-816
84. Talanquer V., (2008), Students' predictions about the sensory properties of chemical compounds: additive versus emergent frameworks, Sci. Educ., 92 (1), 96-114
85. Talanquer V., (2009), On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: the case of structure of matter, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31 (15), 2123-2136
86. Talanquer V., (2009), On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: the case of "structure of matter", Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31, 2123-2136
87. Talanquer V., (2010), Exploring dominant types of explanations built by general chemistry students, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 32 (18), 2393-2412
88. Talanquer V., (2013a), School chemistry: the need for transgression, Sci. & Educ., 22, 1757-1773
89. Talanquer V., (2013b), How do students reason about chemical substances and reactions? in Tsaparlis G. and Sevian H. (ed.), Concepts of matter in science education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 331-346
90. Talanquer V., (2013c), Chemistry education: ten facets to shape us, J. Chem. Educ., 90 (7), 832-838
91. Talanquer V. and Pollard J., (2010), Let's teach how we think instead of what we know, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11, 74-83
92. Talanquer V. and Sevian H., (2013), Chemistry in past and new science frameworks and standards: gains, losses, and missed opportunities, J. Chem. Educ., DOI: 10.1021/ed400134c
93. Van Berkel B., de Vos W., Verdonk A. H. and Pilot A., (2000), Normal science education and its dangers: the case of school chemistry, Sci. & Educ., 9, 123-159
94. Vilches A. and Gil-Pérez D., (2013), Creating a sustainable future: some philosophical and educational considerations for chemistry teaching, Sci. & Educ., 22 (7), 1857-1872
95. von Aufschnaiter C. and von Aufschnaiter S., (2003), Theoretical framework and empirical evidence of students' cognitive processes in three dimensions of content, complexity, and time, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40 (7), 616-648
96. Vosniadou S., (1994), Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change, Learn. Instr., 4, 45-69
97. Vosniadou S. and Ortony A. (ed.), (1989), Similarity and analogical reasoning, New York: Cambridge University Press
98. Vosniadou S., Vamvakoussi X. and Skopeliti I., (2008), The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change, in Vosniadou S. (ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change, New York: Routledge, pp. 3-34
99. Waddington D., Nentwig P. and Schanze S. (ed.), (2007), Standards in science education, Münster, Germany: Waxmann
100. Wilson M., (2009), Measuring progression: assessment structures underlying a learning progression, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46, 716-730
101. Wiser M. and Smith C. L., (2008), Learning and teaching about matter in Grades K-8: when should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? in Vosniadou S. (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, New York: Routledge, pp. 205-239
102. Wiser M., Fox V. and Frazier K., (2013), At the beginning was amount of material: a learning progression for matter for early elementary grades, in Tsaparlis G. and Sevian H. (ed.), Concepts of matter in science education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 95-122
103. Zeidler D. L., Sadler T. D., Simmons M. L. and Howes E. V., (2005), Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socio-scientific issues education, Sci. Educ., 89, 357-377