Engaging students in analyzing and interpreting data to construct mathematical models: An analysis of students' reasoning in a method of initial rates task

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 798-810

  Becker, Nicole M ^a   Rupp, Charlie A ^a   Brandriet, Alexandra ^a  

^a E355 Chemistry Building ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85037624143     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c6rp00205f     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bain K. and Towns M. H., (2016), A review of research on the teaching and learning of chemical kinetics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 246-262, DOI: 10.1039/C5RP00176E.
2. Boudreaux A., Shaffer P., Heron P. and McDermott L., (2008), Student understanding of control of variables: deciding whether or not a variable influences the behavior of a system, Am. J. Phys., 76, 163-170, DOI: 10.1119/1.2805235.
3. Briggs D. C., Alonzo A. C., Schwab C. and Wilson M., (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items, Educ. Asses., 11(1), 33-63, DOI: 10.1207/s15326977ea1101-2.
4. Brown T. E., LeMay H. E., Bursten B. E., Murphy C., Woodward P. and Stoltzfus M. E., (2014), Chemistry: The Central Science, 13 edn, Boston: Pearson.
5. Cakmakci G., (2005), A crosssectional study of the understanding of chemical kinetics among Turkish secondary and undergraduate students, England: University of Leeds.
6. Cakmakci G., (2010), Identifying alternative conceptions of chemical kinetics among secondary school and undergraduate students in Turkey, J. Chem. Educ., 87, 449-455, DOI: 10.1021/ed8001336.
7. Cakmakci G. and Aydogdu C., (2011), Designing and evaluating an evidence-informed instruction in chemical kinetics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12, 15-28, DOI: 10.1039/C1RP90004H.
8. Cakmakci G., Leach J. and Donnelly J., (2006), Students ideas about reaction rate and its relationship with concentration or pressure, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28, 1795-1815, DOI: 10.1080/09500690600823490.
9. Corbin J. and Strauss A., (2008), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10. diSessa A. A., (1993), Toward an epistemology of physics, Cogn Instr., 10(2/3), 105-225.
11. Gunckel K. L., Covitt B. A., Salinas I. and Anderson C. W., (2012), A learning progression for water in socio-ecological systems, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 49(7), 843-868, DOI: 10.1002/tea.21024.
12. 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, DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2010.491751.
13. Hammer D. and Elby A., (2003), Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci., 12(1), 53-90, DOI: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1201-3.
14. Heisterkamp K. and Talanquer V., (2015), Interpreting Data: The Hybrid Mind, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 1988-1995, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00589.
15. Holme T. and Murphy K., (2012), The ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map I: General chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 721-723, DOI: 10.1021/ed300050q.
16. Holme T., Luxford C. and Murphy K., (2015), Updating the General Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 1115-1116, DOI: 10.1021/ed500712k.
17. Izsak A. and Jacobson E., (2017), Preservice teachers reasoning about relationships that are and are not proportional: A Knowledge-in-Pieces Account, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48, 300-339.
18. Justi R., (2002), Teaching and learning chemical kinetics, in Gilbert J. K., de Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. F. and Driel J. H. V. (ed.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 293-315.
19. Kousathana M. and Tsaparlis G., (2002), Students errors in solving numerical chemical equilibrium problems, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 3, 5-17, DOI: 10.1039/B0RP90030C.
20. Kurt S. and Ayas A., (2012), Improving students understanding and explaining real life problems on concepts of reaction rate by using a four-step constructivist approach, Energy Educ. Sci. Technol., Part B, 4, 979-992.
21. MacGregor M. and Stacey K., (1997), Students understanding of algebraic notation: 11-15, Educ. Stud. Math., 33(1), 1-19.
22. Mohan L., Chen J. and Anderson C. W., (2009), Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socioecological systems, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46(6), 675-698, DOI: 10.1002/tea.20314.
23. Murphy K., Holme T., Zenisky A., Caruthers H. and Knaus K., (2012), Building the ACS Exams Anchoring Concept Content Map for Undergraduate Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 715-720, DOI: 10.1021/ed300049w.
24. National Research Council., (2012), A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
25. Nurrenbern S. C. and Pickering M., (1987), Concept learning versus problem solving: is there a difference? J. Chem. Educ., 64, 508, DOI: 10.1021/ed064p508.
26. Osborne J., (2014), Teaching scientific practices: meeting the challenge of change, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 25(2), 177-196, DOI: 10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1.
27. Pasley J. D., Trygstad P. J. and Banilower E. R., (2016), What does Implementing the NGSS Mean? Operationalizing the science practices for K-12 classrooms, Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
28. Schuchardt A. M. and Schunn C. D., (2016), Modeling Scientific Processes With Mathematics Equations Enhances Student Qualitative Conceptual Understanding and Quantitative Problem Solving, Sci. Educ., 100(2), 290-320, DOI: 10.1002/sce.21198.
29. Schwarz C. V. and White B. Y., (2005), Metamodeling Knowledge: Developing Students Understanding of Scientific Modeling, Cogn Instr., 23(2), 165-205, DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci2302-1.
30. Talanquer V., (2006), Commonsense chemistry: a model for understanding students alternative conceptions, J. Chem. Educ., 83, 811-816, DOI: 10.1021/ed083p811.
31. Toulmin S., (1958), The uses of argument, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
32. Treagust D. F., Chittleborough G. and Mamiala T. L., (2002), Students understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 24(4), 357-368, DOI: 10.1080/09500690110066485.
33. Turanyi T. and Toth Z., (2013), Hungarian university students misunderstandings in thermodynamics and chemical kinetics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14, 105-116, DOI: 10.1039/C2RP20015E.
34. Van Driel J. H., (2002), Students corpuscular conceptions in the context of chemical equilibrium and chemical kinetics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 3, 201-213, DOI: 10.1039/B2RP90016E.
35. White B. Y., Collins A. and Frederiksen J. R., (2011), The Nature of Scientific Meta-Knowledge, in Khine M. S. and Saleh I. M. (ed.), Models and Modeling, Springer: Netherlands, pp. 41-76, DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-0449-7-3.
36. Wilson M., (2005), Constructing measure: an item response modeling approach, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
37. Wilson M., (2009), Measuring progressions: assessment structures underlying a learning progression, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46(6), 716-730, DOI: 10.1002/tea.20318.
38. Yalcinkaya E., Tastan-Kirik O., Boz Y. and Yildiran D., (2012), Is case-based learning an effective teaching strategy to challenge students alternative conceptions regarding chemical kinetics? Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 30, 151-172, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2012.698605.
39. Yan Y. K. and Subramaniam R., (2016), Diagnostic appraisal of grade 12 students understanding of reaction kinetics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 1114-1126, DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00168H.
40. Zhou S., Han J., Koenig K., Raplinger A., Pi Y., Li D., Bao L., (2016), Assessment of Scientific Reasoning: The Effects of Task Context, Data, and Design on Student Reasoning in Control of Variables, Think. Skills Creat., 19, 175-187, DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.11.004.