Advertisement

A PROBABILISTIC MODEL FOR STUDENTS’ ERRORS AND MISCONCEPTIONS ON THE STRUCTURE OF MATTER IN RELATION TO THREE COGNITIVE VARIABLES

  • Georgios Tsitsipis
  • Dimitrios StamovlasisEmail author
  • George Papageorgiou
Article

Abstract

In this study, the effect of 3 cognitive variables such as logical thinking, field dependence/field independence, and convergent/divergent thinking on some specific students’ answers related to the particulate nature of matter was investigated by means of probabilistic models. Besides recording and tabulating the students’ responses, a combination of binomial and multinomial logistic regression techniques was used to analyze the data. Thus, students’ misconceptions as well as the compatible-with-the-scientific-view student’s answers were explored one by one in relation to the above 3 cognitive variables. The study took place with the participation of 329 ninth-grade junior high school pupils (aged 14–15). The results showed that mostly logical thinking and sporadically the other 2 cognitive variables were significantly associated with students’ answers. Interpretation of the results and implications for science education are discussed.

Key words

binomial logistic regression multinomial logistic regression cognitive variables convergence/divergence field dependence/independence logical thinking misconceptions structure of matter 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayas, A., Ozmen, H. & Calic, M. (2010). Students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter at secondary and tertiary level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adadan, E., Irving, K. E. & Trundle, K. C. (2009). Impacts of multi-representational instruction on high school students’ conceptual understanding of the particulate nature of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1743–1775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bahar, M. (1999). Investigation of biology student’s cognitive structure through word association tests, mind maps and structural communication grids. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  5. Bahar, M. & Hansell, M. (2000). The relationship between some psychological factors and their effects on the performance of grid questions and word association tests. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 20, 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationships between selective cognitive variables and students’ ability to solve chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne, M., Johnstone, A. & Pope, A. (1994). Reasoning in science: A language problem revealed? School Science Review, 75(272), 103–107.Google Scholar
  8. Cantu, L. L. & Herron, J. D. (1978). Concrete and formal Piagetian stages and science concept attainment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandran, S., Treagust, D. F. & Tobin, K. (1987). The role of cognitive factors in chemistry achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(2), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change in and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 129–160). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chiappetta, E. L. & Russell, J. M. (1982). The relationship among logical thinking, problem solving instruction, and knowledge and application of earth science subject matter. Science & Education, 66(1), 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Child, D. & Smithers, A. (1973). An attempted validation of the Joyce-Hudson scale of convergence and divergence. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danili, E. & Reid, N. (2004). Some strategies to improve performance in school chemistry, based on two cognitive factors. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22, 201–223.Google Scholar
  14. Danili, E. & Reid, N. (2006). Cognitive factors that can potentially affect pupils’ test performance. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 64–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dow, W. M., Auld, J. & Wilson, D. (1978). Pupils’ concepts of gases, liquids and solids. Dundee, UK: Northern College of Education, Dundee Campus.Google Scholar
  18. Feynman, R. P. (1963). Six easy pieces. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  19. Griffiths, A. & Preston, K. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611–628.Google Scholar
  20. Howe, A. & Durr, B. (1982). Using concrete materials and peer interaction to enhance learning in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison, A. G., Grayson, D. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigating a grade 11 student’s evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heller, K. A. (2007). Scientific ability and creativity. High Ability Studies, 18(2), 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary imaginations: A psychological study of the English schoolboy. Great Britain: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, P. M. (1998a). Progression in children’s understanding of a ‘basic’ particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, P. M. (1998b). 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, 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, P. M. (1998c). Children’s understanding of state involving the gas state, Part 2. Evaporation and condensation below boiling point. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 695–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, M. A. & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnstone, A. H. & Al-Naeme, K. (1995). Filling a curriculum gap in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 219–232.Google Scholar
  29. Johnstone, A. H., Hogg, W. R. & Ziane, M. (1993). A working memory model applied to physics problem solving. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T. & Koh, H. (2005). The influence of students’ cognitive and motivational variables in respect of cognitive conflict and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1037–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawson, A. E. (1978). Development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawson, A. E. (1982). Formal reasoning, achievement, and intelligence: An issue of importance. Science & Education, 66(1), 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawson, A. E. (1983). Predicting science achievement: The role of developmental level, disembedding ability, mental capacity, prior knowledge, and beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawson, A. E. (1985). A review of research on formal reasoning and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 569–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawson, A. E. (1993). Classroom test of scientific reasoning: Revised paper–pencil edition. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  36. Lawson, A. E. & Renner, J. W. (1975). Relationship of science subject matter and developmental levels of learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(4), 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lawson, A. E. & Thompson, L. D. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9), 733–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, O., Eichinger, D., Anderson, C., Berkheimer, C. & Blakeslee, T. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Newell, A. (1995). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Niaz, M. (1996). Reasoning strategies of students in solving chemistry problems as a function of developmental level, functional M-capacity and disembedding ability. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 525–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Novick, S. & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science & Education, 62, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Papageorgiou, G. & Johnson, P. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils’ understanding of phenomena? International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1299–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Papageorgiou, G., Stamovlasis, D. & Johnson, P. (2010). Primary teachers’ particle ideas and explanations of physical phenomena: The effect of an in-service training course. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pascual-Leone, J. (1969). The encoding and decoding of symbols by children: A new experimental paradigm and neo-Piagetian model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 8, 328–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget’s developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 32, 301–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pereira, M. & Pestana, M. E. (1991). Pupils’ representations of models of water. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Runco, M. A. (1986). Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and non-gifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stamovlasis, D. (2006). The nonlinear dynamical hypothesis in science education problem solving: A catastrophe theory approach. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Science, 10(1), 37–70.Google Scholar
  49. Stamovlasis, D. (2010). Methodological and epistemological issues on linear regression applied to psychometric variables in problem solving: Rethinking variance. Chemistry Education, Research and Practice, 11, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stamovlasis, D. (2011). Nonlinear dynamics and neo-Piagetian theories in problem solving: Perspectives on a new epistemology and theory development. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Science, 15(2), 145–173.Google Scholar
  51. Stamovlasis, D. & Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Cognitive variables in problem solving: A nonlinear approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tinajero, C. & Paramo, F. M. (1998). Field dependence–independence cognitive style and academic achievement: A review of research and theory. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Non-algorithmic quantitative problem solving in university physical chemistry: A correlation study of the role of selective cognitive factors. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23, 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tsitsipis, G., Stamovlasis, D. & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). The effect of three cognitive variables on students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its changes of state. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 987–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth. A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Witkin, H. A. & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New York: International University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R. & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64.Google Scholar
  59. Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E. & Karp, S. A. (1971). Embedded figures test, children’s embedded figures test, group embedded figures test: Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  60. Zeitoun, H. H. (1984). Teaching scientific analogies: A proposed model. Research in Science and Technological Education, 2, 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zeitoun, H. H. (1989). The relationship between abstract concept achievement and prior knowledge, formal reasoning ability and gender. International Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios Tsitsipis
    • 2
  • Dimitrios Stamovlasis
    • 1
    Email author
  • George Papageorgiou
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and EducationAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Primary EducationDemocritus University of ThraceAlexandroupoliGreece

Personalised recommendations