Advertisement

Development of Understanding in Chemistry

  • Hannah Sevian
  • Vicente Talanquer
  • Astrid M. W. Bulte
  • Angelica Stacy
  • Jennifer Claesgens
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 1)

Abstract

Research in science education is concerned with studying and describing how student learning develops over time toward building understanding of core 'big ideas.' This paper offers perspectives on how the development of coherent conceptual understanding in chemistry may be approached. Following an overview of what 'learning progressions' are, the following three aspects of learning progressions research are highlighted: interpreting student reasoning in terms of cognitive constraints that influence learning, mapping student understanding in chemistry, and promoting the development of understanding through engagement in purposeful activity.

Keywords

Student Learning Conceptual Change Conceptual Understanding Student Understanding Progress Variable 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge funding sources that provided support for their research: HS acknowledges US NSF award 0412390, AMWB acknowledges the Department of Chemistry of Utrecht University, and AS acknowledges US NSF award 0125651. Part of this work was conducted while one of the authors (HS) was under employment of the US National Science Foundation (NSF). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and/or of those whose work is drawn upon and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the funding sources. The authors acknowledge their coauthors who significantly contributed to the work summarized in this chapter: Kathleen Scalise, John Gilbert, and Albert Pilot.

References

  1. Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Alonzo, A., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389–421.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The solo taxonomy. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1063–1086.Google Scholar
  5. Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three kinds of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and ontological shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Claesgens, J., Scalise, K., Wilson, M., & Stacy, A. (2009). Mapping student understanding in chemistry: The perspectives of chemists. Science Education, 93(1), 56–85.Google Scholar
  7. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Consortium for policy research in education report #RR-63, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  8. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105–225.Google Scholar
  9. Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182.Google Scholar
  10. Foster, J., & Wiser, M. (2012). The potential of learning progression research to inform the design of state science standards. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 435–459). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Furtak, E. M. (2009). Toward learning progressions as teacher development tools. Paper presented at the learning progressions in science, Iowa City. http://www.education.msu.edu/projects/leaps/proceedings/Furtak.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2012.
  12. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976.Google Scholar
  13. Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817–837.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Liu, X., & Lesniak, K. M. (2005). Students’ progression of understanding the matter concept from elementary to high school. Science Education, 89(3), 433–450.Google Scholar
  16. Luntley, M. (2008). Conceptual development and the paradox of learning. Journal of Philology Education, 42(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  17. Maeyer, J., & Talanquer, V. (2010). The role of intuitive heuristics in students’ thinking: Ranking chemical substances. Science Education, 94, 963–984.Google Scholar
  18. Mohan, L., & Plummer, J. (2012). Exploring challenges to defining learning progressions. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 139–147). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675–698.Google Scholar
  20. National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rogat, A. (2011). Developing learning progressions in support of the new science standards: a RAPID workshop series. http://www.cpre.org/developing-learning-progressions-support-new-science-standards-rapid-workshop-series-0. Accessed 19 Sept 2012.
  22. Scalise, K., Claesgens, J., Wilson, M., Stacy, A. (2006). ChemQuery: An assessment system for mapping student progress in learning general chemistry. Paper presented at the NSF conference for assessment of student achievement, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Sevian, H., & Stains, M. (2013). Implicit assumptions and progress variables in a learning progression about structure and motion of matter. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education (pp. 69–94). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Sikorski, T. R., Hammer, D. (2010). A critique of how learning progressions research conceptualizes sophistication and progress. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, J. Radinsky (Eds.) Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences, vol. 1, pp. 1032–1039. International Society of the Learning Sciences: Chicago.Google Scholar
  25. Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177–237.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and atomic-molecular theory. Measurement, 4(1&2), 1–98.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Carraher, D. W. (2010). Using a comparative, longitudinal study with upper elementary school students to test some assumptions of a learning progression for matter. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  28. Stains, M. N., Escriu-Suñé, M., Molina, M., & Sevian, H. (2011). Assessing secondary and college students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: Development and validation of the Structure And Motion of Matter (SAMM) survey. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(10), 1359–1365.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Talanquer, V. (2006). Common sense chemistry: A model for understanding students’ alternative conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 811–816.Google Scholar
  31. Talanquer, V. (2008). Students’ predictions about the sensory properties of chemical compounds: Additive versus emergent frameworks. Science Education, 92(1), 96–114.Google Scholar
  32. Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: The case of structure of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123–2136.Google Scholar
  33. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69.Google Scholar
  34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wiser, M., Smith, C. L., & Doubler, S. (2012). Learning progressions as tools for curriculum development: Lessons from the inquiry project. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 359–403). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Wiser, M., Frazier, K., & Fox, V. (2013). At the beginning was amount of material: A learning progression for matter for early elementary grades. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education (pp. 95–122). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannah Sevian
    • 1
  • Vicente Talanquer
    • 2
  • Astrid M. W. Bulte
    • 3
  • Angelica Stacy
    • 4
  • Jennifer Claesgens
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryUniversity of Massachusetts-BostonBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry and BiochemistryUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics EducationUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of ChemistryUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  5. 5.Center for Science Teaching and LearningNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations