Mapping students' conceptual modes when thinking about chemical reactions used to make a desired product

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 561-577

  Weinrich, M L ^a   Talanquer, V ^a  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937419704     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c5rp00024f     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Ahtee M. and Varjola I. (1998). Students' understanding of chemical reaction, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 20, 305-316.
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. Baillargeon R., Li J., Ng W. and Yuan S., (2009), An account of infants' physical reasoning, in Woodward A. and Needham A. (ed.), Learning and the infant mind, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 66-116.
5. Bhattacharyya G., (2014), Trials and tribulations: student approaches and difficulties with proposing mechanisms using the electron-pushing formalism, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15(4), 594-609.
6. Bhattacharyya G. and Bodner G. M., (2005), "It gets me to the product": How students propose organic mechanisms, J. Chem. Educ., 82(9), 1402-1407.
7. Bowdle B. F. and Gentner D., (2005), The career of metaphor, Psychol. Rev., 112(1), 193-216.
8. 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.
9. Charmaz K., (2006), Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
10. Chi M. T. H., (2005), Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust, J. Learn. Sci., 14(2), 161-199.
11. 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.
12. Chi M. T. H., Roscoe R. D., Slotta J. D., Roy M. and Chase C. C., (2012), Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes, Cognit. Sci., 36(1), 1-61.
13. Clement J. J. and Rea-Ramirez M. A. (ed.), (2008), Model based learning and instruction in science, London: Springer.
14. Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S. M. and Hilley, C. Z., (2012), Development and validation of the implicit information from Lewis structures instrument (IILSI): do students connect structures with properties? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12, 195-200.
15. Cooper M. M., Corley L. H. and Underwood S. M., (2013), An investigation of college chemistry students' understanding of structure-property relationships, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 50, 699-721.
16. Davis B. H. and Occelli M. L. (2007), Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, catalyst and catalysis, Boston: Elsevier.
17. de Arellano D. C. R. and Towns M. H., (2014), Students' understanding of alkyl halide reactions in undergraduate organic chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15(4), 501-515.
18. diSessa A. A., (1993), Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr., 10(2/3), 165-255.
19. Duschl R., Maeng S. and Sezen A., (2011), Learning progressions and teaching sequences: a review and analysis, Stud. Sci. Educ., 47(2), 123-182.
20. Ferguson R. and Bodner G. M., (2008), Making sense of the arrow-pushing formalism among chemistry majors enrolled in organic chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9(2), 102-113.
21. Gelman S. A., (2009), Learning from others: children's construction of concepts, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 60, 115-140.
22. Grotzer T. A., (2003), Learning to understand the forms of causality implicit in scientifically accepted explanations, Stud. Sci. Educ., 39, 1-74.
23. Grove N., Cooper M. and Rush K., (2012), Decorating with arrows: toward the development of representational competence in organic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 844-849.
24. 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.
25. Hatano G. and Inagaki K., (2000), Domain-specific constraints on conceptual development, Int. J. Behav. Dev., 24(3), 267-275.
26. Hatzinikita V., Koulaidis V. and Hatzinikitas A., (2005), Modeling pupils' understanding and explanations concerning changes in matter. Res. Sci. Educ., 35, 471-495.
27. Keil F. C., (1979), Semantic and conceptual development: an ontological perspective, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Keil F. C., (1990), Constraints on constraints: Surveying the epigenetic landscape, Cognit. Sci., 14(1), 135-168.
29. Kind V., (2004), Beyond appearances: students' misconceptions about basic chemical ideas, 2nd edn, London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
30. Kraft A., Strickland A. M. and Bhattacharyya G., (2010), Reasonable reasoning: multi-variate problem-solving in organic chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11(4), 281-292.
31. Krajcik J. S., (2012), The importance, cautions and future of learning progression research, in Alonzo A. C. and Gotwals A. W. (ed.), Learning progressions in science: current challenges and future directions, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 27-36.
32. Maeyer J. and Talanquer V., (2013), Making predictions about chemical reactivity: Assumptions and heuristics, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 50(6), 748-767.
33. Mortimer E. F., (1995), Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Sci. Educ., 4(3), 267-285.
34. Mortimer E. F., (2001), Perfil conceptual: Formas de pensar y hablar em las classes de ciencias [Conceptual profile: modes of thinking and ways of speaking in science classrooms], Infancia y Aprendizaje, 24(4), 475-490.
35. Mortimer E. F., Scott P., Ribeiro do Amaral E. M. and El-Hani C. N., (2014), Conceptual profiles: theoretical-methodological bases of a research program, in Mortimer E. F. and El-Hani C. N. (ed.), Conceptual profiles: a theory of teaching and learning scientific concepts, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 3-33.
36. National Research Council (NRC), (2007), Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
37. Ngai C., Sevian H. and Talanquer V., (2014), What is this substance? What makes it different? Mapping progression in students' assumptions about chemical identity, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 36, 2438-2461.
38. Pinker S., (2007), The stuff of thought: language as a window into human nature, New York: Penguin Group.
39. Sendur G. and Toprak M., (2013), The role of conceptual change texts to improve students' understanding of alkenes, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14(4), 431-449.
40. Sevian H. and Talanquer V., (2014), Rethinking chemistry: a learning progression on chemical thinking, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15(1), 10-23.
41. Sloman S. A., (1996), The empirical case for two systems of reasoning, Psychol. Bull., 119(1), 3-22.
42. Slotta J. D., Chi M. T. H. and Joram E., (1995), Assessing students' misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change, Cognit. Instr., 13, 373-400.
43. 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.
44. Spelke E. S. and Kinzler K. D., (2007), Core knowledge, Dev. Sci., 10(1), 89-96.
45. Stains M. and Sevian H., (2014), Uncovering implicit assumptions: a large-scale study on students' mental models of diffusion, Res. Sci. Educ., DOI: 10.1007/s11165-014-9450-x.
46. Stavy R. and Tirosh D., (2000), How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics: intuitive rules, New York: Teachers College Press.
47. 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.
48. Taber K. S., (2014), The significance of implicit knowledge for learning and teaching chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15(4), 447-461.
49. Taber K. and Adbo K., (2013), Developing chemical understanding in the explanatory vacuum: Swedish high school students' use of an anthropomorphic conceptual framework to make sense of chemical phenomena, in Tsaparlis G. and Sevian H. (ed.), Concepts of matter in science education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 347-372.
50. Taber K. S. and Watts M., (2000), Learners' explanations for chemical phenomena, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 1(3), 329-353.
51. Talanquer V., (2006), Commonsense chemistry: a model for understanding students' alternative conceptions, J. Chem. Educ., 83(5), 811-816.
52. Talanquer V., (2008), Students' predictions about the sensory properties of chemical compounds: additive versus emergent frameworks, Sci. Educ., 92(1), 96-114.
53. Talanquer V., (2010), Exploring dominant types of explanations built by general chemistry students, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 32 (18), 2393-2412.
54. Talanquer V., (2013a), 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.
55. Talanquer V., (2013b), When atoms want, J. Chem. Educ., 90(11), 1419-1424.
56. Talanquer V., (2015), Threshold concepts in chemistry: the critical role of implicit schemas, J. Chem. Educ., 92(1) 3-9.
57. Talanquer V. and Pollard J. (2010), Let's teach how we think instead of what we know, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11(2), 74-83.
58. Talmy L., (1988), Force dynamics in language and cognition, Cognit. Sci., 12(1), 49-100.
59. Todd P. M. and Gigerenzer G., (2000), Precis of simple heuristics that make us smart, J. Behav. Brain Sci., 23(5), 727-780.
60. Vosniadou S., (1994), Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change, Learn. Instr., 4(1), 45-69.
61. Vosniadou S., (2013), Conceptual change in learning and instruction: the framework theory approach, in Vosniadou S. (ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change, 2nd edn, New York: Routledge, pp. 11-30.
62. Vosniadou S. and Ortony A., (1989), Similarity and analogical reasoning: a synthesis, in Vosniadou S. and Ortony A. (ed.), Similarity and analogical reasoning, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-17.
63. 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.
64. Zoller U., (1990), Students misunderstandings and misconceptions in college freshman chemistry (general and organic), J. Res. Sci. Teach., 27(10), 1053-1065.