Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introducing Iranian Primary Children to Atoms and Molecules

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

Abstract

In common with many other countries, the Iranian science curriculum does not introduce primary children to atoms and molecules but instead leaves the teaching of these concepts until high school. This paper challenges this practice and describes the changes in elementary Iranian children’s understanding of atoms and molecules following a 10-h teaching intervention about basic atomic-molecular theory, derived from recently published Australian research. The participants involved in this study are a group of 25 Iranian children aged 9 to 12 years old, who participated in a vacation summer school where they were taught about the structure of atoms and molecules. Thematic and content analysis of children’s written responses and drawings before and after the intervention reveal significant changes in their conceptual thinking. The results also show the extent to which the children can generate microscopic representations of the states of matter from their understanding of atoms and molecules.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACARA. (2019). The Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/science/

  • Adbo, K., & Taber, K. S. (2009). Learners’ mental models of the particle nature of matter: A study of 16-year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 757–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arani, A. M., Kakia, M. L., & Karimi, M. V. (2012). Assessment in education in Iran. SA-eDUC, 9(2) Retrieved from http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-saeduc/New_Folder_1/3_Assessment%20in%20education%20in%20Iran.pdf.

  • Au, T. K., Sidle, A. L., & Rollins, K. B. (1993). Developing an intuitive understanding of conservation and contamination: Invisible particles as a plausible mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.2.286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachtold, M. (2013). A pragmatic approach to the atomic model in chemistry. In J.-P. Llored (Ed.), The philosophy of chemistry: practices, methodologies and concepts (pp. 426–451). Cambridge Scholars Press.

  • Baker, D., & Taylor, P. C. S. (1995). The effect of culture on the learning of science in non-Western countries: The results of an integrated research review. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069950170602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H.-Y., & Tzeng, S.-F. (2018). Investigating Taiwanese students’ visualization competence of matter at the particulate level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(7), 1207–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9834-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). Routledge.

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 49–70). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203154472.ch3.

  • Clement, J. (2008). The role of explanatory models in teaching for conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 417–452). Routledge.

  • Clement, J. (2013). Roles for explanatory models and analogies in conceptual change. In International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (2nd ed., pp. 412–446). Routledge.

  • Cokelez, A. (2012). Junior high school students’ ideas about the shape and size of the atom. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9223-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cokelez, A., & Dumon, A. (2005). Atom and molecule: Upper secondary school French students’ representations in long-term memory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(3), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90005G.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000276712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education. (2013a). Science programmes of study: Key stages 1 and 2. National Curriculum in England. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-primary-curriculum

  • Department for Education. (2013b). Science programmes of study: Key stages 3 and 4. National Curriculum in England. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-secondary-curriculum

  • diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105–225.

  • diSessa, 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.

  • Donovan, J. & Haeusler, C. (2015). Developing scientific literacy: Introducing primary-aged children to atomic-molecular theory. In E. deSilva (Ed.), Cases on Research-Based Teaching Methods in Science Education (pp. 30–63). IGI Global.

  • Driver, R. (1978). When is a stage not a stage? A critique of Piaget's theory of cognitive development and its application to science education. Educational Research, 21(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188780210108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmons, N., Lees, K., & Kelemen, D. (2018). Young children's near and far transfer of the basic theory of natural selection: An analogical storybook intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerland, M. W., Lydersen, S., & Laake, P. (2013). The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data: Mid-p and asymptotic are better than exact conditional. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 91–98. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/13/91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faitar, G. M. (2006). Individualism versus collectivism in schools. The College Quarterly, 9(4) Retrieved from http://collegequarterly.ca/2006-vol09-num04-fall/faitar.html.

  • Fensham, P. (1994). Beginning to teach chemistry. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 14–28). Falmer.

  • Foppoli, A., Choudhary, R., Blair, D., Kaur, T., Moschilla, J., & Zadnik, M. (2018). Public and teacher response to Einsteinian physics in schools. Physics Education, 54(1), 015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aae4a4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009a). Towards a coherent model for macro, submicro and symbolic representations in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education (Vol. 4, pp. 333–350). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_15.

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009b). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education (Vol. 4, pp. 1–8). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8.

  • Guttman, L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 9(2), 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadenfeldt, J. C., Neumann, K., Bernholt, S., Liu, X., & Parchmann, I. (2016). Students’ progression in understanding the matter concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 683–708. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeusler, C., & Donovan, J. (2020). Challenging the science curriculum paradigm: Teaching primary children atomic-molecular theory. Research in Science Education 50, 23–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9679-2.

  • Hamdan, A. K. (2014). The reciprocal and correlative relationship between learning culture and online education: A case from Saudi Arabia. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 309–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199609)80:5<509::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-F.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (Vol. 17, pp. 189–212). Kluwe Academic Publishers.

  • Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (2013). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures (Vol. 84). Routledge.

  • Jahanbakhsh, A. A., & Ajideh, P. (2018). Changing the learning culture of Iranians: An interplay between method and educational policy. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(3), 1883–1904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakab, C. (2013). Small talk: Children’s everyday ‘molecule’ ideas. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1307–1325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9305-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P., & Tymms, P. (2011). The emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 849–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. (1984). How solid is a solid: Does it matter? Research in Science Education, 14(1), 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, T., Blair, D., Moschilla, J., & Zadnik, M. (2017). Teaching Einsteinian physics at schools: Part 2, models and analogies for quantum physics. Physics Education, 52(6), 065013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, T., Blair, D., Moschilla, J., Stannard, W., & Zadnik, M. (2017a). Teaching Einsteinian physics at schools: Part 1, models and analogies for relativity. Physics Education, 52(6), 065012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aa83e4/meta.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, T., Blair, D., Moschilla, J., Stannard, W., & Zadnik, M. (2017b). Teaching Einsteinian physics at schools: Part 3, review of research outcomes. Physics Education, 52(6), 065014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas. School of Education, Durham University.

  • Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 143–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glažar, S. A. (1998). Survey of research related to the development of the concept of ‘matter’. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 257–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glažar, S. A. (2005). The development of the concept of ‘matter’: A cross-age study of how children describe materials. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690412331314441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). Learning progressions: The whole world is NOT a stage. Science Education, 99(3), 432–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, M. (2006). Children's drawings as a methodological tool: Reflections on the eleven plus system in Northern Ireland. Irish Journal of Sociology, 15(2), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/079160350601500204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNemar, Q. (1947). Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika, 12, 153–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meheut, M., & Chomat, A. (1990). The bounds of children’s atomism; an attempt to make children build up a particulate model of matter. In P. L. Lijnse, P. Licht, W. de Vos, A. J. Waarlo, & A.J. (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles, Proceedings of Conference at Utrecht Centre for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Utrecht (pp. 266–282). CDB Press.

  • Merriman, B., & Guerin, S. (2006). Using children’s drawings as data in child-centred research. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 27(1–2), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.2006.10J46227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children’s science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.3102/2F00346543067001151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. (2009). Rethinking what is "developmentally appropriate" from a learning progression perspective: The power and the challenge. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 3(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.26220/rev.119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E., Cardace, A., Berson, E., Ly, U., Wong, N., Sisk-Hilton, S., Metz, E., & Wilson, M. (2019). Primary grade children’s capacity to understand microevolution: The power of leveraging their fruitful intuitions and engagement in scientific practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 556–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1667806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2014). The New Zealand curriculum. Ministry of Education.

  • Ministry of Education of Iran (2017). Available at: http://www.chap.sch.ir/school-books

  • Mitchell, L. M. (2006). Child-centered? Thinking critically about children's drawings as a visual research method. Visual Anthropology Review, 22(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1525/var.2006.22.1.60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds.) (2016). TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/home/countries/Iran,IslamicRep.of.

  • Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children's beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 777–805. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<777::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-Z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

  • Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education, 62(3), 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozden, M. (2009). Primary student teachers' ideas of atoms and molecules: Using drawings as a research method. Education, 129(4), 635–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozmen, H. (2011). Turkish primary students' conceptions about the particulate nature of matter. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(1), 99–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, E. J., & Light, G. (2009). Identifying atomic structure as a threshold concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701675880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P., & Linder-VanBerschot, J. (2010). Cultural dimensions of learning: Addressing the challenges of multicultural instruction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i2.809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pembury Smith, M. Q. R., & Ruxton, G. D. (2020). Effective use of the McNemar test. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 74, 133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-020-02916-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prowse, J., & Goddard, J. T. (2010). Teaching across cultures: Canada and Qatar. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 40(1), 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, A. B., & Rozin, P. (1993). Now you see it, now you don't: The preschool child's conception of invisible particles in the context of dissolving. Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.2.300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T., Harlen, W., & Watt, D. (1989). Children's ideas about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 566–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Said, Z. (2016). Science education reform in Qatar: Progress and challenges. Eurasian Jornal of Mathematics, Science and Technology, 12(8), 2253–2265. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1301a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Said, Z., & Friesen, H. (2013). Topic article: The impact of educational reform on science and mathematics education in Qatar. In Proceedings of the 1st International Interdisciplinary Conference.Azores, Portugal (pp. 621–635).

  • Samarapungavan, A., Bryan, L., & Wills, J. (2017). Second graders’ emerging particle models of matter in the context of learning through model-based inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 988–1023. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikorski, T. R., & Hammer, D. (2010). A critique of how learning progressions research conceptualizes sophistication and progress. Paper presented at the 9th international conference of the learning sciences. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1854492

  • Smith, C. L. (2007). Bootstrapping processes in the development of students' commonsense matter theories: Using analogical mappings, thought experiments, and learning to measure to promote conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 337–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701632363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Focus article: Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and atomic-molecular theory. Measurement, 14(1&2), 1–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2006.9678570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teacher’s pedagogical content beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains; quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staudt, C., Behesti, E., Forman, G., Kimball, N., & Broadhead, J. (2015). Sensing science: Assessing K2 students’ readiness for reasoning with kinetic models of heat. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

  • Stavy, R. (1988). Children's conception of gas. International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavy, R., & Stachel, D. (1985). Children's ideas about ‘solid’ and ‘liquid’. European Journal of Science Education, 7(4), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/014s0528850070409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tay-Lim, J., & Lim, S. (2013). Privileging younger children's voices in research: Use of drawings and a co-construction process. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Qureshi, S. S., Vishnumolakala, V. R., Ojeil, J., Mocerino, M., & Sothham, D. C. (2020). Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) as a culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) in Qatar: A perspective from grade 10 chemistry classes. Research in Science Education, 50, 813–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9712-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilardo, D. A., MacKenzie, A. H., & Yezierski, E. J. (2017). Using students’ conceptions of air to evaluate a guided-inquiry activity classifying matter using particulate models. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(2), 206–210. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b01011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2007). The Cognitive-situative divide and the problem of conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 42(1):55–66.

  • Vosniadou, S. (2013). Model based reasoning and the learning of counter-intuitive science concepts. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037013804826519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2019). The development of students' understanding of science. Frontiers in Education, 4, 32 Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/feduc.2019.00032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 123–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90022-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science & Education, 23(7), 1427–1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9640-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 381–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00038-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, G. J., Schmeling, S. M., & Hopf, M. (2015). Can grade-6 students understand quarks? Probing acceptance of the subatomic structure of matter with 12-year-olds. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, G. J., Schmeling, S. M., & Hopf, M. (2017a). Why not start with quarks? Teachers investigate a learning unit on the subatomic structure of matter with 12-year-olds. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 134–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, G. J., Schmeling, S. M., & Hopf, M. (2017b). Introducing 12 year-olds to elementary particles. Physics Education, 52(4), 044001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aa6cfe.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, L., & Firiendly, M. (2009). The history of the cluster heat map. The American Statistician, 63(2), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1198/tas.2009.0033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, M., & Smith, C. (2016). How is conceptual change possible? Insights from science education. In D. Barner & A. S. Baron (Eds.), Core knowledge and conceptual change (pp. 29–52). Oxford University Press.

  • Yanowitz, K. L. (2001). Using analogies to improve elementary school students' inferential reasoning about scientific concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 101(3), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18016.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Library & Information Sciences, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

    Fatima Baji

  2. University of Southern Queensland, West Street, Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350, Australia

    Carole Haeusler

Authors
  1. Fatima Baji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carole Haeusler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carole Haeusler.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

The Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran, gave ethical approval of this study.

Consent to Participate

Parent and children involved in the research gave informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 6 The sequence of pre and post questions for each research question
Full size table

Appendix 2

(a) The coding scheme for atomic structure, adapted from Stevens et al. (2010), and applied to the post responses of children O and H. (Translated from Farsi)

A coding score of 1 = concept evident, 0 = concept not evident. Italicized words have been added to contextualize the children’s answers.

figure a

(b) The coding scheme for molecular structure and applied to the Post responses of children L and Q.

figure b

Appendix 3

Analysis of Post Data for Atoms

The preliminary Guttman scaling process of the coded concepts of atoms revealed two distinct groups of concepts. McNemar’s tests show that these two groups are statistically different from each other. The groups are:

  • Group 1: (a2) atoms are made of components, (a3) atoms contain electrons, (a4) atoms contain protons

  • Group 2: (a5) protons are in the nucleus, (a6) electrons are on the outside of the nucleus, (a7) nucleus in the centre, (a8) electrons are in shells, (a9) Bohr/solar system (drawn)

For example, the cross-tab for (a3) “atoms contain electrons” and (a8) “electrons are in shells” is shown in Table 7. The off-diagonal total is 10, and McNemar’s test gives a mid-p value of .001 and large effect size (.63), meaning that (a3) and (a8) are statistically different and (a8) subsumes (a3).

Table 7 The cross-tab for (a3) “atoms contains electrons” and (a8) “electrons are in shells”
Full size table

It is expected that the group 1 concepts would be statistically different from (a1) “atoms are spherical/circles”, but McNemar’s tests do not clearly enable this distinction to be made. These tests for (a1) with the proton concept (a4) gave a mid-p value .015 and a large effect size of .49,  and with the electron concept (a3) resulted in a mid-p value of .062 and effect size of .40. These results suggests the likelihood of type 11 errors.

Inconclusive results also arise for the placement of the charge concepts and the neutrons concepts. Removing these concepts from the Guttman analysis gives a clearer indication of how the concepts might be meaningfully combined. For clarity, we also did not include the size concepts as it is possible that the five students who could not describe electrons or protons may have either guessed that electrons and protons are smaller than atoms, and the four students who identified that electrons and protons were in the atom and were unclear about their relative sizes, may have held the misconception that the proton was the atom and electrons moved in the space around the atom.

Table 8 shows the modified Guttman analysis, and from this, we constructed three atom model levels, noting that the difference in difficulty between level 1 and level 2 cannot be confirmed. Students were only allocated to a particular level if most of the level concepts could be clearly identified in their drawings and written responses. Consequently, students Y, P, A and H were assigned to level 2 rather than level 3 in (a) and (b). This means that the constructs for level 2 shown in Table 9 are minimum features that were identified in the data. Students in these groups may also have included information about neutrons and their location, charge of electrons and protons and their sizes relative to atoms.

Table 8 Guttman scaling of atom concepts
Full size table
Table 9 Atom model levels and distribution (N = 25)
Full size table

Analysis of Post Data for Molecules

The Guttman analysis of the molecule coded data (Table 10) followed the same process as for the analysis of the atom data. Concept (m2), molecules are bigger than atoms,  was removed as McNemar tests could not clearly differentiate it from concepts (m1) and (m3).

Three molecule model levels were constructed from concepts as shown in Table 11 combined to form level 2 as shown in Table 8. McNemar’s tests revealed a statistical difference between level 1 and level 2 (mid-p = .032, effect size = .46 (medium-large)) and level 2 and level 3 (mid-p = .015, effect size = .49 (medium-large)).

Table 10 Guttman scaling of the molecule data
Full size table
Table 11 Molecule model levels and distribution (N = 25)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baji, F., Haeusler, C. Introducing Iranian Primary Children to Atoms and Molecules. Res Sci Educ 52, 1387–1418 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10008-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10008-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation