Models and Modelling in Chemical Education

  • Rosaria Justi
  • John Gilbert
Chapter
Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (CTISE, volume 17)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, N. (2000). Teaching and learning about chemistry and modelling with a computer managed modelling system. In J. Gilbert, & C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing Models in Science Education, (pp. 307–323). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batista, A.A., & Justi, R. S. (2000). Modelos de ensino de ligações químicas [Models in the teaching of chemical bonding], Paper presented at the 10th Brazilian Conference on Chemical Education, Porto Alegre, 12–15 July.Google Scholar
  4. Bailer-Jones, D.M. (1999). Tracing the development of models in the philosophy of science. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian and P. Thagard (Eds.) Model-based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. (pp. 23–40). New York: Kluwer and Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bent, H.A. (1984). Uses (and abuses) of models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 61(9), 774–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulter, C.J., & Buckley, B.C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boulter, C.J. & Gilbert, J.K. (2000). Challenges and opportunities. In J K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 343–362). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiappetta, E.L., Sethna, G.H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991). A quantitative analysis of high school chemistry textbooks for science literacy: Themes and expository learning aids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 939–951.Google Scholar
  9. Clement, J. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism. In J.A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 341–381). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of ionic bonding: A cross-age study, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri, 25–28 March.Google Scholar
  11. Copolo, C. F. & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology 4(4), 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cordeiro, E. S., & Justi, R. S. (2000). Influência de Modelos de ensino na aprendizagem de modelos atômicos de Thomson e Rutherford [Influence of models in the teaching and learning of the Thomson’s and Rutherford’s atomic models], Paper presented at the 10th Brazilian Conference on Chemical Education, Porto Alegre, 12–15 July.Google Scholar
  13. Cosgrove, M., & Schaverien, L. (1997). Models of science education. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Exploring models and modelling in science and technology education: Contributions from the MISTRE group (pp. 20–34). Reading, UK: Faculty of Education and Community Studies, The University of Reading.Google Scholar
  14. De Jong, O., & Van Driel, J. (2001). Developing preservice teachers’ content knowledge and PCK of models and modelling, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri, 25–28 March.Google Scholar
  15. Duit, R., & Glynn, S. (1996). Mental modelling. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 166–176). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  16. Ealy, J. B. (1999). A student evaluation of molecular modeling in first year college chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erduran, S. (2001). Philosophy of chemistry: An emerging field with implications for chemistry education. Science & Education, 10(6), 581–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fleming, S. A., Hart, G. R., & Savage, P. B. (2000). Molecular orbital animations for organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(6), 790–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Francoeur, E. (1997). The forgotten tool: The design and use of molecular models. Social Studies of Science, 27, 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Francoeur, E. (2000). Beyond dematerialization and inscription: Does the materiality of molecular models really matter? HYLE — An International Journal of the Philosophy of Chemistry, 6(1), 52–69.Google Scholar
  21. Frederiksen, J. R., White, B. Y., & Gutwill, J. (1999). Dynamic Mental Models in Learning Science: The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 806–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giere, R. N. (1999). Using Models to Represent Reality. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian and P. Thagard (Eds.) Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 41–57). New York: Kluwer and Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert, J. (Ed.) (1993). Models & modelling in science education. Hatfield, UK: The Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  24. Gilbert, J. (1997). Models in science and science education. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Exploring models and modelling in science and technology education: contributions from the MISTRE group (pp. 5–19). Reading: Faculty of Education and Community Studies, The University of Reading.Google Scholar
  25. Gilbert, J., & Boulter, C. (1997). Learning science through models and modelling. In B. Fraser, & K. Tobin (Eds), International Handbook of Science Education, Part 1 (pp. 53–66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Gilbert, J. K., & Reiner, M. (2000). Thought experiments in science education: potential and current realization. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilbert, J., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, Part 1: horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic modelling for meaningful learning of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 1019–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hardwicke, A. J. (1995). Using molecular models to teach chemistry Part 1 modelling molecules. School Science Review, 77(278), 59–64.Google Scholar
  32. Harrison, A. G. (2000). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, 29 April — 1 May.Google Scholar
  33. Harrison, A. (2001). Models and PCK: Their relevance for practicing and preservice teachers, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri, 25–28 March.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000a). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000b). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ingham, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Justi, R. S. (1997). Models in the teaching of chemical kinetics, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Reading: The University of Reading.Google Scholar
  40. Justi, R. (2000). Teaching with historical models. In J. Gilbert, & C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education, (pp. 209–226). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (1999). A cause of ahistorical science teaching: use of hybrid models. Science Education, 83(2), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of ‘the atom’. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 993–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2001). Teachers’ views about models and modelling in science education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri, 25–28 March.Google Scholar
  44. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (in press a). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education.Google Scholar
  45. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Koama, R. B. & Russel, J, (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Luisi, P. L., & Thomas, R. M. (1990). The pictographic molecular paradigm — Pictorial communication in the chemical and biological sciences. Naturwissenschaften, 77, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mainzer, K. (1999). Computational models and virtual reality. New perspectives of research in chemistry. HYLE — An International Journal of the Philosophy of Chemistry, 5(2), 117–126.Google Scholar
  50. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Milagres, V. S. O., & Justi, R. S. (2001). Modelos de ensino de equilíbrio químico — Algumas considerações sobre o que tem sido apresentado por livros didáticos brasileiros destinados ao ensino medio [Teaching models of chemical equilibrium — some aspects about what Brazilian medium level textbooks have been presented]. Química Nova na Escola, 13, 35–40.Google Scholar
  52. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.) (1999). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: School of Education, Kings’ College London.Google Scholar
  53. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morrison, M., & Morgan, M. S. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In M. S. Morgan, & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators (pp. 10–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nersessian, N. J. (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian and P. Thagard (Eds.) Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 5–22). New York: Kluwer and Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ramberg, P. (2000). Pragmatism, Belief, and Reduction: Stereoformulas and Atomic Models in Early Stereochemistry. HYLE — An International Journal of the Philosophy of Chemistry, 6(1), 29–51.Google Scholar
  57. Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Russel, J. W., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N. & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 330–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  60. Stinner, A. (1995). Science Textbooks: Their present role and future form. In S. M. Glynn, & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools (pp. 275–296). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  61. Suckling, C. J., Suckling, K. E., & Suckling, C.W. (1980). Chemistry through models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sutton, C. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tomasi, J. (1988). Models and modeling in theoretical chemistry. Journal of Molecular Structure (Theochem), 179, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Treagust, D. F., & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific Instructional Methods and Activities (pp. 239–267). Oxford: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., Venville, G. J., & Dagher, Z. (1996). Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Trindle, C. (1999). Entering Modeling Space. An apprenticeship in molecular modeling. HYLE — An International Journal of the Philosophy of Chemistry, 5(2), 127–142.Google Scholar
  67. Van Driel, J. H. (1998). Teachers’ knowledge about the nature of models and modelling in science, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Education, San Diego, 19–22 April.Google Scholar
  68. Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(6). 673–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosaria Justi
    • 1
  • John Gilbert
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisBrazil
  2. 2.University of ReadingUK

Personalised recommendations