College chemistry students' understanding of potential energy in the context of atomic-molecular interactions

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 51, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 789-808

  Becker, Nicole M ^a   Cooper, Melanie M ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

chemistry; conceptual change; misconceptions

Indexed keywords

ATOMS; CHEMISTRY; MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; POTENTIAL ENERGY; SCAFFOLDS;

ATOMIC-MOLECULAR LEVEL; CHEMISTRY STUDENTS; CONCEPTUAL CHANGE; MACROSCOPIC ENERGY; MISCONCEPTIONS; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS; UNDERGRADUATE CHEMISTRY; UNDERGRADUATE CHEMISTRY CURRICULUM;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84904739295     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21159     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Achieve, (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved July 02, 2013, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.
2. Bain, K., Moon, A., Mack, M. R., &, Towns, M. H., (2014). A review of research on the teaching and learning of thermodynamics at the university level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1039/c4rp00011k
3. Barker, V., &, Millar, R., (2000). Students' reasoning about basic chemical thermodynamics and chemical bonding: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course ? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1171-1200. doi: 10.1080/09500690050166742
4. Boo, H. K., (1998). Students' understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 569-581. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199805)35:5<569:AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-N (Pubitemid 128460257)
5. Bruice, P. Y., (2010). Organic chemistry. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6. Bryfczynski, S. P., (2012). BeSocratic: An intelligent tutoring system for the recognition JT, evaluation, and analysis of free-form student input. Clemson University. Retrieved from UMI No. 3550201.
7. Byrfczynski, S., Pargas, R. P., Cooper, M. M., Klymkowsky, M., Hester, J., &, Grove, N. P., (2012). BeSocratic: Graphically assessing student knowledge. In BeSocratic: Graphically assessing student knowledge. (pp. 2-7). Berlin Germany.
8. Cooper, M., Corley, L. M., &, Sonia, S. M., (2013). An investigation of college chemistry students' understanding of structure-property relationships. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 699-721. doi: 10.1002/tea.21093
9. Cooper, M., &, Klymkowsky, M. W., (2012). Chemistry, life, the universe & everything. (pp. 1-241).
10. Cooper, M., &, Klymkowsky, M. W., (2013). The trouble with chemical energy: Why understanding bond energies requires an interdisciplinary systems approach. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12, 306-312. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-10-0170
11. Cooper, M., Klymkowsky, M. W., &, Becker, N. M., (2014). Energy in chemical systems: An integrated approach. In, R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, &, J. Krajcik, (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education. New York, NY: Springer.
12. Corbin, J., &, Strauss, A., (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for deveoping grounded theory. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
13. DiSessa, A., Gillespie, N., &, Esterly, J., (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843-900. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.05.003 (Pubitemid 39620371)
14. Duschl, R., Maeng, S., &, Sezen, A., (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. In Studies in science education. (Vol. 47. pp. 123-182). doi: 10.1080/03057267.2011.604476
15. Ebenezer, J. V., &, Fraser, D. M., (2001). First year chemical engineering students' conceptions of energy in solution procesess: Phenomenographic categories for common knowledge construction. Science Education, 5, 509-535. doi: 10.1002/sce.1021
16. Fortus, D., &, Krajcik, J., (2012). Curricular coherence and learning progressions. In, B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, &, C. J. McRobbie, (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. (pp. 783-798). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
17. Galley, W. C., (2004). Exothermic bond breaking: A persistent misconception. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 523-525. doi: 10.1021/ed081p523
18. Goedhart, M., &, Kaper, W., (2003). From chemical energetics to chemical thermodynamics. In, J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. Treagust, &, J. H. van Driel, (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice. (Vol. 17. pp. 339-362). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
19. Hadfield, L., &, Wieman, C., (2010). Student interpretations of equations related to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Journal of Chemical Education, 87, 750-755. doi: 10.1021/ed1001625
20. Jewett, J. W., (2008). Energy and the confused student II: Systems. The Physics Teacher, 46, 81-86. doi: 10.1119/1.2834527
21. Jin, H., &, Anderson, C. W., (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1149-1180.
22. Kronik, L., Levy Nahum, T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., &, Hofstein, A., (2008). A new "Bottom-Up" framework for teaching chemical bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 1680. doi: 10.1021/ed085p1680
23. Lacy, S., Tobin, R., Wiser, M., &, Crissman, S., (2014). Looking through the energy lens: A proposed learning progression for energy in grades. 3-5. In, B. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. Nordine, &, A. Scheff, (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education. New York: Springer.
24. Lindsey, B. A, Heron. P. R. L., &, Shaffer, P. S., (2012). Student understanding of energy: Difficulties related to systems. American Journal of Physics, 80, 154-163. Retrieved from http://link.aip.org/link/AJPIAS/v80/i2/ p154/s1&Agg=doi
25. Loverude, M. E., (2005). Student understanding of gravitational potential energy and the motion of bodies in a gravitational field. AIP Conference Proceedings, 790, 77-80. doi: 10.1063/1.2084705 (Pubitemid 44555958)
26. Maeyer, J., &, Talanquer, V., (2013). Making predictions about chemical reactivity: Assumptions and heuristics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 748-767. doi: 10.1002/tea.21092
27. Nahum, T., Mamloka 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, 579-603. doi: 10.1002/sce.20201
28. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas., Q. Helen, S. Heidi, &, K. Thomas, (Eds.), Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
29. Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., &, Fischer, H. E., (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (2), 162-188. doi: 10.1002/tea.21061
30. Nilsson, T., &, Niedderer, H., (2014). Undergraduate students' conceptions of enthalpy, enthalpy change and related concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1039/C2RP20135F
31. Nordine, J., Krajcik, J. S., &, Fortus, D., (2011). Transforming energy instruction in middle school to support integrated understanding and future learning. Science Education, 95, 670-699. doi: 10.1002/sce.20423
32. Novak, J. D., (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86, 548-571. doi: 10.1002/sce.10032 (Pubitemid 37230319)
33. Sreenivasulu, B., &, Subramaniam, R., (2012). University students' understanding of chemical thermodynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 601-635. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.683460
34. Storey, R., (1992). Textbook errors & misconceptions in biology: Cell energetics. The American Biology Teacher, 54, 161-166. doi: 10.2307/4449321
35. Taber, K. S., (2003). Understanding ionisation energy: Physical, chemical and alternative conceptions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4, 149. doi: 10.1039/b3rp90010j
36. Taber, K. S., (2009). College students' conceptions of chemical stability: The widespread adoption of a heuristic rule out of context and beyond its range of application. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1333-1358. doi: 10.1080/09500690801975594
37. Talanquer, V., (2007). Explanations and teleology in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 853-870. doi: 10.1080/09500690601087632
38. Teichert, M. A., &, Stacy, A. M., (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 464-496. doi: 10.1002/tea.10033 (Pubitemid 34858153)
39. Tro, N. J., (2012). Chemistry in focus: A molecular view of our world. (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, California: Brooks-Cole Publishing.
40. Vygotsky, L., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes., M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, &, E. Souberman, (Eds.), (14th ed.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.