Can Simple Particle Models Support Satisfying Explanations of Chemical Changes for Young Students?

Chapter
Part of the Innovations in Science Education and Technology book series (ISET, volume 19)

Abstract

Since the meaning of an explanation of a chemical change is related to both an evaluation of the macroscopic changes and an interpretation at the microscopic level, any satisfying explanation requires the development of a particular model describing the structure of substances. A number of such models have been already developed by science education researchers in relation to corresponding educational levels, providing bases for explanations of chemical changes. In this chapter, an attempt is made to generally categorize such models in relation to educational levels, and thereafter some thoughts are presented concerning the general context, the possibilities and the usefulness of an introduction of such a particle model, and possible corresponding explanations to young students (ages 11/12). The idea to work for satisfying explanations of chemical changes even from the upper grades of primary school is supported. Some thoughts about conditions concerning the design and implementation of an appropriate curriculum are discussed.

Keywords

Chemical Change Particle Model Young Student Chemical Phenomenon Particle Idea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70(5), 549–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandrasegaran, A. L., & Treagust, D. F. (2008). An evaluation of a teaching intervention to promote students; ability to use multiple levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical reactions. Research in Science Education, 38, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cokelez, A., Dumon, A., & Taber, K. S. (2008). Upper secondary French students’ chemical transformations and the “Register of models”: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 807–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2003). National strategy: Strengthening the teaching and learning of particles in Key stage 3 science. London: Crown copyright.Google Scholar
  6. Franco, A. G., & Taber, K. S. (2009). Secondary students’ thinking about familiar phenomena: Learners’ explanations from a curriculum context where ‘particles’ is a key idea for organising teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1917–1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greek Pedagogical Institute. (2003). National program of study for primary and secondary education: Science. Athens: Greek Pedagogical Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Hatzinikita, V., Koulaidis, V., & Hatzinikitas, A. (2005). Modeling pupils’ understanding and explanations concerning changes in matter. Research in Science Education, 35, 471–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, P. M. (2002). Children’s Understanding of substances, part 2: Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1037–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson, P. M., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substance-based framework”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 130–150.Google Scholar
  11. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry – Logical or psychological. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Papageorgiou, G., & Johnson, P. M. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils’ understanding of phenomena? International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1299–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Papageorgiou, G., Grammatikopoulou, M., & Johnson, P. (2010). Should we teach primary pupils about chemical change? International Journal of Science Education, 32(12), 1647–1664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Taber, K. S. (1997). Student understanding of ionic bonding: Molecular versus electrostatic framework? School Science Review, 78, 85–95.Google Scholar
  15. Taber, K. S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(2), 123–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Taber, K. S. (2003). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: Fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5, 43–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (2000). Learners’ explanations for chemical phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(3), 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Taber, K. S., Tsaparlis, G., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2012). Student conceptions of ionic bonding: Patterns of thinking across three European contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2843–2873.Google Scholar
  19. Tsaparlis, G., & Papaphotis, G. (2009). High-school students’ conceptual difficulties and attempts at conceptual change: The case of basic quantum chemical concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 895–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205–239). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Primary Education, Division of Science and MathematicsDemocritus University of ThraceAlexandroupolisGreece

Personalised recommendations