Exploring Learners’ Conceptual Resources: Singapore A Level Students’ Explanations in the Topic of Ionisation Energy

Article

Abstract

This paper describes findings from a study to explore Singapore A-level (Grades 11 and 12, 16–19 yr old) students' understanding of ionisation energy, an abstract and complex topic that is featured in school chemistry courses. Previous research had reported that students in the United Kingdom commonly use alternative notions based on the perceived stability of full shells and the ‘sharing out’ of nuclear force, but that such ideas tend to be applied inconsistently. This paper describes results from the administration of a two-tier multiple-choice instrument, the ionisation energy diagnostic instrument, to find (1) whether A-level students in Singapore have similar ways of thinking about the factors influencing ionisation energy as reported from their A-level counterparts in the UK; and (2) how Singapore A-level students explain the trend of ionisation energy across different elements in Period 3. The results indicate that students in Singapore use the same alternative ideas as those in the UK, and also a related alternative notion. The study also demonstrates considerable inconsistency in the way students responded to related items. The potential significance of the findings to student understanding of complex topics across the sciences is considered.

Keywords

conceptual resources diagnostic assessment ionisation energy knowledge-in-pieces p-prims two-tier multiple-choice test 

References

  1. Claxton, G. (1993). Minitheories: A preliminary model for learning science. In P.J. Black & A.M. Lucas (Eds.), Children's informal ideas in science (pp. 45–61). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. diSessa, A.A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Driver, R. & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37–60.Google Scholar
  4. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P. & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Duit, R. (1991). Students' conceptual frameworks: Consequences for learning science. In S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany & B.K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 65–85). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Duit, R. (2006). Bibliography-Students' and Teachers' Conceptions and Science Education, available from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html, accessed 27/04/2006.
  8. Gilbert, J.K. & Watts, D.M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61–98.Google Scholar
  9. Glynn, S.M., Yeany, R.H. & Britton, B.K. (1991). A constructive view of learning science. In S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany & B.K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 3–19). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 8(5), 509–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mortimer, E.F. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science and Education, 4, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Peterson, R.F. (1986). The Development, Validation and Application of a Diagnostic Test Measuring Year 11 and 12 Students' Understanding of Covalent Bonding and Structure. Master's thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia.Google Scholar
  13. Peterson, R.F., Treagust, D.F. & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and -12 students' concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(4), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shayer, M. & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of science teaching: Cognitive development and curriculum demand. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, J.P., diSessa, A.A. & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Solomon, J. (1992). Getting to know about energy-in school and society. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  17. Solomon, J. (1993). The social construction of children's scientific knowledge. In P.J. Black & A.M. Lucas (Eds.), Children's informal ideas in science (pp. 85–101). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Taber, K.S. (1995). An analogy for discussing progression in learning chemistry. School Science Review, 76(276), 91–95.Google Scholar
  19. Taber, K.S. (1998). The sharing-out of nuclear attraction: or I can't think about physics in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 1001–1014.Google Scholar
  20. Taber, K.S. (1999). Ideas about ionisation energy: A diagnostic instrument. School Science Review, 81(295), 97–104.Google Scholar
  21. Taber, K.S. (2000). Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taber, K.S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions-prevention, diagnosis and cure. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  23. Taber, K.S. (2003a). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: Fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5(1), 43–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taber, K.S. (2003b). Understanding ionisation energy: Physical, chemical and alternative conceptions. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(2), 149–169.Google Scholar
  25. Taber, K.S. (2004) Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89(1), 94–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taber, K.S. (2006). Beyond constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42, 125–184Google Scholar
  27. Tan, K.C.D. & Treagust, D.F. (1999). Evaluating students' understanding of chemical bonding. School Science Review, 81(294), 75–83.Google Scholar
  28. Tan, K.C.D., Goh, N.K., Chia, L.S. & Treagust, D.F. (2002). Development and application of a two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument to assess high school students' understanding of inorganic chemistry qualitative analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tan, K.C.D., Goh, N.K., Chia, L.S. & Taber, K.S. (2005a) Development of a two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument to determine a-level students' understanding of ionisation energy. Monograph, Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.Google Scholar
  30. Tan, K.C.D., Taber, K.S., Goh, N.K. & Chia, L.S. (2005b). The ionisation energy diagnostic instrument: A two-tier multiple choice instrument to determine high school students' understanding of ionisation energy. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 6(4), 180–197.Google Scholar
  31. Treagust, D.F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students' science knowledge. In S.M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 327–346). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Tyson, L., Treagust, D.F. & Bucat, R.B. (1999). The complexity of teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 554–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205–222.Google Scholar
  34. Watts, M. (1983a). A study of schoolchildren's alternative frameworks of the concept of force. European Journal of Science Education, 5(2), 217–230.Google Scholar
  35. Watts, M. (1983b). Some alternative views of energy. Physics Education, 18, 213–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations