Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consistency of Students’ Ideas across Evaporation, Condensation, and Boiling

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Existing research on students’ conceptions contain competing philosophical positions concerning the nature of students’ ideas—whether those ideas are coherent, systematic and theory-like, or fragmented and incoherent. Existing research has also focused primarily on studies of individual conceptions rather than investigating multiple, related conceptions. Nevertheless, there is wide agreement among researchers and teachers alike that the ideas students bring to a learning situation are fertile ground for investigation, and that students’ ideas should be taken into consideration when planning science instruction. The purpose of this study was to examine the representational, conceptual framework, and contextual consistency aspects of two students’ ideas across concepts of evaporation, condensation, and boiling. Knowing the consistency students express for each specific concept, and how well they integrate these related concepts, would offer insights that could potentially impact student learning. We present two case studies here that highlight the degree of consistency expressed by two students across different representations for each target concept and in instances where these conceptions are related to one another. Findings from this study highlight the need for attention to the consistency of students’ ideas across multiple, related concepts. Implications from this study support our recommendation for metaconceptual teaching strategies that would help students examine different representations for the same concept and also to examine the consistency of their ideas across multiple conceptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers in Education, 33, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar, V., & Galili, I. (1994). Stages of children’s views about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar, V., & Travis, A. S. (1991). Children’s views concerning phase changes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 363–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeth, M. E. (1998). Facilitating conceptual change learning: The need for teachers to support metacognition. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BouJaoude, S. B. (1991). A study of the nature of students’ understandings about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 689–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boz, Y. (2006). Turkish pupils’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canpolat, N. (2006). Turkish undergraduates’ misconceptions of evaporation, evaporation rate, and vapour pressure. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1757–1770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canpolat, N., Pinarbasi, T., & Sozbilir, M. (2006). Prospective teachers’ misconceptions of vaporization and vapor pressure. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(8), 1237–1242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. Scholnick, K. Nelson, S. Gelman, & P. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget’s legacy (pp. 293–326). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, J.-Y. (1999). Teachers college students’ conceptions about evaporation, condensation, and boiling. Science Education, 83, 511–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92, 848–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, N. J., & Bredin, S. D. (1994). Constructing naïve theories of motion on the fly. Memory & Cognition, 22(4), 474–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, O., & Taber, K. S. (2007). Teaching and learning the many faces of chemistry. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 631–652). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence vs. fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird’s-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 35–60). Routledge: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel Clough, E., & Driver, R. (1986). A study of consistency in the use of students’ conceptual frameworks across different task contexts. Science Education, 70(4), 473–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopal, H., Kleinsmidt, J., & Case, J. (2004). An investigation of tertiary students’ understanding of evaporation, condensation and vapor pressure. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1597–1620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory theory. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257–293). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In K. G. Tobin & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199–218). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40, 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2008). Conceptual change in naïve biology. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 240–262). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (1998a). Children’s understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, Part 1: Boiling water and the particle theory. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (1998b). Children’s understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, Part 2: Evaporation and condensation below boiling point. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 695–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwen, B. H. (1996). Consistency and inconsistency in A level students’ understandings of a number of chemical reactions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 14(1), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, C. J. (1993). A challenge to conceptual change. Science Education, 77(3), 293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science Education, 4, 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(9), 825–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D. (1993). How consistently do students use their alternative frameworks? Research in Science Education, 23, 228–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozo, J. I., & Crespo, M. A. G. (2005). The embodied nature of implicit theories: The consistency of ideas about the nature of matter. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 351–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M. (1992). Patterns of thought on light, and underlying commitments. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (Proceedings of an International Workshop held at the University of Bremen) (pp. 99–109). University of Kiel: Institute for Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savinainen, A., & Viiri, J. (2008). The force concept inventory as a measure of students’ conceptual coherence. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 719–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. L., & Renner, J. W. (1982). Student understandings and misunderstandings of states of matter and density changes. School Science and Mathematics, 82(8), 650–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2000). Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2000). A comparison of year 1 and year 6 students’ conceptions of evaporation and condensation: Dimensions of conceptual progression. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 447–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37, 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ueno, N. (1993). Reconsidering p-prims theory from the viewpoint of situated cognition. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 239–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1989). Analogical reasoning and knowledge acquisition: A developmental perspective. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 413–422). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41(4), 347–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. R., Prieto, T., & Dillon, J. S. (1997). Consistency of students’ explanations about combustion. Science Education, 81, 425–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuruk, N., Beeth, M. E., & Andersen, C. A. (2009). Analyzing the effect of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ understanding of force and motion concepts. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 449–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this article was done under the support of the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) covering the period from January 11, 2008 to January 10, 2009.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Middle East Technical University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Zubeyde Demet Kirbulut

  2. University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, USA

    Michael Edward Beeth

Authors
  1. Zubeyde Demet Kirbulut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Edward Beeth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zubeyde Demet Kirbulut.

Appendices

Appendix A

Interview Questions

  1. 1.

    How would you describe the difference between solids, liquids and gases?

    ALTERNATIVE QUESTION

    What are some distinctive characteristics for solids, liquids and gases?

    FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS

    • Why do solids stay the same shape while liquids and gases do not?

    • How would you draw pictures of solids, liquids and gases in terms of the particles that make up each?

    • How do the motions of particles in solids, liquids and gases compare?

  1. 2.

    Imagine an amount of ice in a closed cup at −25°C (−13°F). If the ice was heated to 125°C (257°F), what would happen to the ice?

    FOLLOW-UP Q

    • What do you think that will happen to the particles of ice as the temperature increases from −25°C (−13°F) to 125°C (257°F)? (in terms of motion, arrangement)

    • Which of the following graphs best represents your idea?

      Can you show where freezing, melting, evaporating, condensing and boiling occur on the graph?

      figure a

    • How can you draw a picture of this process (−25°C (−13°F), 0°C (32°F), 100°C (212°F), and 125°C (257°F)) in terms of the particulate nature of matter?

    • What do you think about the motion of the particles for the above question—as the temperature increases from −25°C (−13°F) to 125°C (257°F)?

    • What is your reason for a constant temperature during melting of the ice?

    • If you could measure the volume of water in the container, what would you expect the volume to be after melting?

    • If you could measure the volume of water in the container, what would you expect the volume to be after evaporating?

    • What would you expect the mass of water in the container to be after melting?

    • What would you expect that the mass of water in the container to be after evaporating?

    • What is melting?

  1. 3.

    In a room, there is an open plastic bottle half-filled with water. If this bottle were left for several days, what would happen to the level of water in the bottle?

    ALTERNATIVE Q

    Consider an open plastic bottle half-filled with water sitting on a table. If the bottle is left undisturbed for several days, what happens to the level of water in the bottle?

    FOLLOW-UP Q

    • After you wash your laundry and hang it to dry, what happens to the water in the clothes?

    • If I spill water on the ground, what happens to water when the ground dries?

    • When pure water in an open container at 25°C (77°F) is left out to 10°C (50°F) for a while, what would happen to the level of water in the container?

    • At constant temperature the following four containers contain 100 mL pure water each. Containers I and III are closed containers. How would you compare the evaporation rates for the water in each container?

      figure b

    • What is evaporation?

    • How can you draw the picture of evaporation in terms of the particulate nature of matter?

  1. 4.

    At room temperature, there is a tightly capped plastic bottle half-filled with water. If this bottle is left for several days, you can see many tiny water droplets appear on the underside of the lid of the bottle. Where do these water droplets come from?

    ALTERNATIVE Q

    Consider a tightly capped plastic bottle half-filled with water. If the bottle is left undisturbed for several days, you will see that many tiny water droplets have formed under the lid. Where do these water droplets come from?

    FOLLOW-UP Q

    • How will the mass of water inside the bottle change before and after water droplets appear inside the bottle?

    • A cold beverage is taken out of the refrigerator and placed at room temperature. You see water droplets forming on the outside of a bottle. Where do you think these droplets come from?

      How can you draw the picture of your idea for the above question in terms of the particulate nature of matter?

    • When you hold a cool object above boiling water, the object gets wet. How can you explain this?

    • What is condensation?

    • How can you draw the picture of condensation in terms of the particulate nature of matter?

  1. 5.

    You see bubbles coming from a pot of boiling water. What are these bubbles made of?

    ALTERNATIVE Q

    What do you think exist inside the bubbles in boiling water?

    FOLLOW-UP Q

    • When you leave water at room temperature for a while, you see small bubbles inside the glass. What do you think these bubbles are made of?

    • How can you draw a picture of boiling in terms of the particulate nature of matter?

    • When water is boiling in a pot you see vapor coming out and rising up. What do you think the vapor is?

    • What is boiling?

    • What is the difference between evaporation and boiling?

  1. 6.

    At a particular constant temperature, the following closed three systems contain the same type of liquid. System I has a 1 L volume and contains 50 mL liquid, system II has a 2 L volume and contains 50 mL liquid and system III has a 1 L volume and contains 25 mL volume. How would the vapor pressures compare in these three systems?

    figure c

    FOLLOW-UP Q

    • What is vapor pressure?

Appendix B

Table 1 Coding and categorization scheme for students’ interview data
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kirbulut, Z.D., Beeth, M.E. Consistency of Students’ Ideas across Evaporation, Condensation, and Boiling. Res Sci Educ 43, 209–232 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9264-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9264-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation