Characterizing Students' Mechanistic Reasoning about London Dispersion Forces

Journal of Chemical Education

Volumn 93, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 1713-1724

  Becker, Nicole ^a   Noyes, Keenan ^b   Cooper, Melanie ^b  

^a E11 SSH   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemical Education Research; Curriculum; First Year Undergraduate General; Noncovalent Interactions; Testing Assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84991266611     PISSN: 00219584     EISSN: 19381328     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00298     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Cooper, M. M.; Williams, L. C.; Underwood, S. M. Student Understanding of Intermolecular Forces: A Multimodal Study J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (8) 1288-1298 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00169
2. Williams, L. C.; Underwood, S. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W.; Cooper, M. M. Are noncovalent interactions an Achilles heel in chemistry education? A comparison of instructional approaches J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1979-1987 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00619
3. Grove, N. P.; Cooper, M. M.; Rush, K. M. Decorating with arrows: Toward the development of representational competence in organic chemistry J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 844-849 10.1021/ed2003934
4. Pierri, E.; Karatrantou, A.; Panagiotakopoulos, C. Exploring the phenomenon of "change of phase" of pure substancs using the microcomputer-based-laboratory (MBL) system Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008, 9 (3) 234-239 10.1039/B812412B
5. DeFever, R. S.; Bruce, H.; Bhattacharyya, G. Mental Rolodexing: Senior Chemistry Majors' Understanding of Chemical and Physical Properties J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (3) 415-426 10.1021/ed500360g
6. Maeyer, J.; Talanquer, V. The role of intuitive heuristics in students' thinking: Ranking chemical substances Sci. Educ. 2010, 94, 963-984 10.1002/sce.20397
7. Talanquer, V. When Atoms Want J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (11) 1419-1424 10.1021/ed400311x
8. Taber, K. S. Development of Student Understanding: a case study of stability and lability in cognitive structure Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 1995, 13 (1) 89-99 10.1080/0263514950130108
9. National Research Council. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012.
10. Braaten, M.; Windschitl, M. Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education Sci. Educ. 2011, 95 (4) 639-669 10.1002/sce.20449
11. Cooper, M. M. Why ask why? J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1273-1279 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203
12. Perkins, D. N.; Grotzer, T. A. Dimensions of causal understanding: The role of omplex causal models in students' understanding of science Stud. Sci. Educ. 2005, 41, 117-165 10.1080/03057260508560216
13. Russ, R. S.; Scherr, R. E.; Hammer, D.; Mikeska, J. Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science Sci. Educ. 2008, 92 (3) 499-525 10.1002/sce.20264
14. Taber, K. S. Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 156-168 10.1039/C3RP00012E
15. Talanquer, V. Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry "triplet" Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33 (2) 179-195 10.1080/09500690903386435
16. Jacobson, M. J.; Wilensky, U. Complex Systems in Education: Scientific and Educational Importance and Implications for the Learning Sciences J. Learn. Sci. 2006, 15 (1) 11-34 10.1207/s15327809jls1501-4
17. Stieff, M.; Ryu, M.; Yip, J. C. Speaking across levels-generating and addressing levels confusion in discourse Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14 (4) 376-389 10.1039/C3RP20158A
18. Talanquer, V. Exploring Dominant Types of Explanations Built by General Chemistry Students Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2010, 32 (18) 2393-2412 10.1080/09500690903369662
19. National Research Council. Developing assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2014.
20. National Research Council. Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment; Pellegrino, J. W.; Chudowsky, N.; Glaser, R., Eds.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2001.
21. Mislevy, R. J.; Almond, R. G.; Lukas, J. F. A brief introduction to evidence-centered design; The National Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards, Student Testing (CRESST), Center for Studies in Education, UCLA: Los Angeles, CA, 2003.
22. Wilson, M. Constructing measures: An item-response modeling approach; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 2005.
23. Claesgens, J.; Scalise, K.; Wilson, M.; Stacy, A. Mapping student understanding in chemistry: The Perspectives of Chemists Sci. Educ. 2009, 93, 56-85 10.1002/sce.20292
24. Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W. Chemistry, Life, the Universe and Everything: A new approach to general chemistry, and a model for curriculum reform J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1116-1122 10.1020/ed300456y
25. Hunter, P. W. W.; Pollock, A. M. Chemistry, Vol. I, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill Learning Solutions: Boston, MA, 2011.
26. McNeill, K. L.; Lizotte, D. J.; Krajcik, J.; Marx, R. W. Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials J. Learn. Sci. 2006, 15 (2) 153-191 10.1207/s15327809jls1502-1
27. Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2008.
28. Bryfczynski, S.; Pargas, R. P.; Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M.; Hester, J.; Grove, N. P. Classroom uses for BeSocratic. In The impact of pen and touch technology on education; Hammond, T.; Valintine, S.; Adler, A.; Payton, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, 2015; pp 127-136.
29. Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W. Intermolecular forces simulation from CLUE Curriculum. Chemistry, Life, the Universe and Everything Project, 2013; http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/CLUE-Chemistry/LondonDispersionForce/1.2-interactions-0.html (accessed July 2016).