Students' Understanding of the Particulate Nature of Matter

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 103, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 28-44

  Singer, Jonathan E ^a   Tal, Revital ^b   Wu, Hsin Kai ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b Department of Education in Technology and Science ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85158397515     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18111.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.
2. Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Information technology and multiple representations: New opportunities – new problems. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 6(1), 93–104.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A, (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.
5. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536–536.
6. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64–66.
7. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987, July). Students' visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 117–120.
8. Black, P. (1998). Formative assessment: Raising standards inside the classroom. School Science Review, 80(291), 39–46.
9. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. S. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
10. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369–398.
11. Brown, A.L., (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom setting. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.
12. Copolo, C. F., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 295–305.
13. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (1998). The “mole environment” studyware: Applying multidimensional analysis to quantitative chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 317–333.
14. Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 695–697.
16. Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611–628.
17. Hoffmann, R., & Laszlo, R. (1991). Representation in chemistry. Angewandte Chemie, 30, 1–16.
18. Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children's understanding of a “basic” particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 393–412.
19. Keeves, J.P. (1998). Methods and processes in research in science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1127–1153). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
20. Kozma, R. B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.
21. Krajcik, J. S. (1989). Students' interactions with science software containing dynamic visuals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.
22. Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students' understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science: International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 117–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94, 483–497.
24. Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. New York: McGraw-Hill College.
25. Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students' conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249–270.
26. Lin, L. (1993). Language of and in the classroom: Constructing the patterns of social life. Linguistics and Education, 5(3&4), 367–410.
27. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 4–13, 22.
28. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. O'Connor, E. A. (1997). Students' use of atomic and molecular models in learning chemistry. Unpublished dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York.
30. Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20, 10–18.
31. Schwartz, D. L. (1993). The construction of analogical transfer of symbolic visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1309–1325.
32. Shepardson, D.P., & Pizzini, E.L. (1991). Questioning levels of junior high school science textbooks and their implications for learning textual information. Science Education, 75, 673–682.
33. Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–36). New York: MacMillan.
34. Singer, J., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Clay-Chambers, J., (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.
35. Stern, L., & Roseman, J-E., (2000). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from Project 2061 curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
36. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.