Collaborative discourse and the modeling of solution chemistry with magnetic 3D physical models-impact and characterization

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 835-848

  Warfa, Abdi Rizak M ^a   Roehrig, Gillian H ^b   Schneider, Jamie L ^c   Nyachwaya, James ^d  

^a METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN RIVER FALLS   (United States)

^d NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908660858     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c4rp00119b     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Abraham M. R., Williamson V. M. and Westbrook S. L., (1994), A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 31, 147-165
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, (1993), Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Project 2061, New York: Oxford University Press
3. Ardac D. and Akaygun S., (2004), Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes representations on students' understanding of chemical change, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 41 (4), 317-337
4. Becker N., Rasmussen C., Sweeney G., Wawro M., Towns M. and Cole R., (2013), Reasoning using particulate nature of matter: An example of a sociochemical norm in a university-level physical chemistry class, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14, 81-94
5. Berland L. K., (2011), Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation, J. Learn. Sci., 20, 625-664
6. Bivall P., Ainsworth S., Tibell L., (2011), Do haptic representations help complex molecular learning? Sci. Educ., 95, 700-719
7. Blumer H., (1969), Symbolic Interactionism, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
8. Bogden R. C. and Biklen S. K., (2003), Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods, 4th edn, New York: Pearson Education Group
9. Bridle C. and Yezierski E., (2012), Evidence for effectiveness of inquiry-based, particulate-level instruction on conceptions of the particulate nature of matter, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 192-198
10. Bruck L. B., Bruck A. D. and Phelps A., (2010), "Gone into solution": assessing the effects of hands-on activity on students' comprehension of solution, J. Chem. Educ., 87, 107-112
11. Calyk M., Ayas A. and Ebenezer J., (2005), A review of solution chemistry studies: insights into students' conceptions, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 14 (1), 29-50
12. Campbell T., Zhang D. and Neilson D., (2011), Model based inquiry in the high school physics classroom: an exploratory study of implementation and outcomes, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 20, 258-269
13. Chittleborough G. and Treagust D., (2008), Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to another, Res. Sci. Educ., 38, 463-482
14. Coll R. K. and Treagust D. F., (2003), Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners' mental models of ionic bonding, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40, 464-486
15. Comai S., Mazza D., Mureddu L., (2010), A haptic-based framework for chemistry education, in Wolpers M., Kirschner P. A., Scheffel M., Lindstaedt S., Dimitrova V. (ed.), Sustaining TEL: From Innovation to Learning and Practice, Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 614-619
16. Cooper M., Grove N., Underwood S. M. and Klymkowsky M. W., (2010), Lost in Lewis structures: an investigation of student difficulties in developing representational competence, J. Chem. Educ., 87, 869-874
17. Creswell J. W., (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications
18. Davidowitz B., Chittleborough G. and Murray E., (2010), Student-generated submicro diagrams: a useful tool for teaching and learning chemical equations and stoichiometry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11, 154-164
19. Duit R. and Treagust D., (2003), Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25 (6), 671-688
20. Ebenezer J. V., (2001), A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students' conceptions: animation of the solution process of table salt, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 10 (1), 73-92
21. Farrell J. J., Moog R. S. and Spencer J. N., (1999), A Guided Inquiry Chemistry Course, J. Chem. Educ., 76, 570-574
22. Feinberg J., (2013), Wordle, www.wordle.net, last accessed August 2013
23. Felder R. M. and Brent R., (2001), Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning, J. Cooperation Collaboration in College Teaching, 10 (2), 69-75
24. Gabel D. L., (1999), Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future, J. Chem. Educ., 76, 548-554
25. Gee J. P. and Green J. L., (1998), Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice, Rev. Res. Educ., 23, 119-169
26. Harrison A. G. and Treagust D. F., (2002), The particulate nature of matter: challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world, in Gilbert J. K., De Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. F. and Van Driel J. H. (ed.), Chemical education: towards research-based practice, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 189-212
27. Heller P. and Hollabaugh M., (1992), Teaching cooperative learning through cooperative grouping. Part 2: designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys., 60 (7), 637-644
28. Hewson P. W. and Thorley R., (1989), The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 11, 541-553
29. Johnson D. W., Johnson R. and Smith K., (1991), Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, Interaction Book Company: Edina, MN
30. Johnstone A. H., (1991), Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem, J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 7, 75-83
31. Kaartinen S. and Kumpulainen K., (2002), Collaborative inquiry and the construction of explanations in the learning of science, Learn. Instr., 12, 189-212
32. Kabapinar F., Leach J. and Scott P., (2004), The design and evaluation of a teaching-learning sequence addressing the solubility concept with Turkish secondary school students, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 26, 635-652
33. Kelly R. M. and Jones L. L., (2007), Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students' explanations, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 16 (5), 413-429
34. Kelly R. M. and Jones L. L., (2008), Investigating students' ability to transfer ideas learned from molecular animations to the dissolution process, J. Chem. Educ., 85, 303-309
35. Khan S., (2011), New pedagogies on teaching science with technology, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 20, 215-232
36. Kozma R. B., (2000), Students collaborating with computer models and physical experiments, in Hoadley C. (ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, pp. 314-322
37. Liu X. and Lesniak K., (2006), Progression in Children's Understanding of the Matter Concept from Elementary to High School, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 43 (3), 320-347
38. McNaught C. and Lam P., (2010), Using Wordle as supplementary research tool, The Qualitative Report, vol. 15, pp. 630-643. Retrieved August 11, 2013 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/mcnaught.pdf
39. Naah B. M. and Sanger M. J., (2012), Student misconceptions in writing balanced equations for dissolving ionic compounds in water, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13, 186-194
40. Naah B. M. and Sanger M. J., (2013), Investigating Students' Understanding of the Dissolving Process, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 22, 103-112
41. National Research Council, NRC, (1996), National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academies Press
42. National Research Council, NRC, (2012), A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC: National Academies Press
43. NRC, (2013), Next Generation Science Standards (www.nextgenscience.org, accessed July 2013)
44. Nussbaum E. M., (2008), Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: preface and literature review, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 33 (3), 345-359
45. Nyachwaya J., Mohamed A., Roehrig G. H., Wood N. B., Kern A. L. and Schneider J. L., (2011), The development of an open-ended drawing tool: an alternative diagnostic tool for assessing students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12, 121-132
46. Posner G., Strike K., Hewson P. and Gertzog W., (1982), Sci. Educ., 66, 211-227
47. Ramlo S. (2011), Using word clouds to present Q methodology data and findings, Human Subjectivity, 9 (2), 99-111
48. Sankaranarayanan G., Weghorst S., Sanner M., Gillet A. and Olson A., (2003), Role of Haptics in Teaching Structural Molecular Biology, in Proceedings of the 11th Symposium of Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environments and Teleoperator Systems (HAPTICS 2003), p. 363-366
49. Smith K. J. and Metz P. A., (1996), Evaluating student understanding of solution chemistry through microscopic representations, J. Chem. Educ., 73, 233-235
50. Strike K. and Posner G., (1985), A conceptual change view of learning and understanding, in West L. and Pines A. (ed.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, Orlando, FL: Academic Press
51. Sweller J., (2008), Cognitive load theory and the use of educational technology, Educ. Technol., 48, 32-35
52. Taber K. S., (1994), Misunderstanding the ionic bond, Educ. Chem., 31 (4), 100-103
53. Taber K. S., (1997), Student understanding of ionic bonding: molecular versus electrostatic thinking? Sch. Sci. Rev., 78 (285), 85-95
54. Taber K., (1998), An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 20, 597-608
55. Taber K., (2013), Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14 (2), 156-168
56. Taber K. S., Tsaparlis G. and Nakiboʇlu C., (2012), Student Conceptions of Ionic Bonding: Patterns of Thinking Across Three European Contexts, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 34 (18), 2843-2873
57. Talanquer V., (2011), Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry "triplet", Sci. Educ., 33, 179-195
58. Tien T. L., Teichert A. M. and Rickey D., (2007), Effectiveness of a MORE laboratory module in prompting students to revise their molecular-level ideas about solutions, J. Chem. Educ., 84, 175-181
59. Tobin K., Tippins D. and Gallard A., (1994), Research on Instructional Strategies for Teaching Science, in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, Dorothy L. Gabel, ed., New York: Macmillan, pp. 45-93
60. Toulmin S. E., (1958), The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
61. Vosniadou S., (2007), Conceptual change and education, Human Dev., 50, 47-54
62. Warfa A. M., Roehrig G., Schneider J. L. and Nyachwaya J., (2014), Role of teacher-initiated discourses in students' development of representational fluency in chemistry: a case study, J. Chem. Educ., 91 (6), 784-792
63. Windschitl M., Thompson J., Braaten M., (2008) Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations, Sci. Educ., 92 (5), 941-967
64. Wu H. K., (2003), Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: intertextuality in high school science classroom, Sci. Educ., 87, 868-891
65. Wu H. K., Krajick J. S., Soloway E., (2001), Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 38, 821-842
66. www.3dmoleculardesign.com, accessed June 2013
67. Yackel E. and Cobb P., (1996), Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics, J. Res. Math. Educ., 27, 458-477