Skip to main content

Learning Progression Developed to Support Students in Building a Particle Model of Matter

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Concepts of Matter in Science Education

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

Abstract

The particle nature of matter is a core idea of science that serves as the building block for understanding states of matter phase changes and properties of substances. Science educators have started to explore learning progressions as a means for understanding how students develop their knowledge of complex science content over time. The development and application of progress variables is one method that has been suggested as a means for tracking students’ knowledge. The How can I smell things from a distance? sixth grade (ages 11–12) chemistry unit takes the approach of building students’ ideas through students’ development of particle model of matter. The empirically validated particle model of matter progress variable was used to track 122 students’ development toward a particle model of matter. Results show that well-aligned curriculum and assessment can help students to develop a particle model of matter.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S., & Talley, L. (1972). The relationship of visualization skills to achievement in freshman chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 49(11), 775–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform (Center on continuous instructional improvement). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F., Davis, R. A., & Sarquis, M. (2006). Modern chemistry. Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deVos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science education and in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 557–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghein, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R., & Bodner, G. (2006). Misconceptions held by chemistry majors while taking organic chemistry. Paper presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 29, 799–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80, 509–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98, 420–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In J. K. Gilbert et al. (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189–212). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian World. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732–748.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P., & 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 

  • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Models and modeling in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert et al. (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47–68). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. A., Wison, M., & Draney, K. (2005). Construct map. Computer program. Berkeley: Berkeley Evaluations and Assessment Research Center, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., Brown, J., Draney, K., & Wilson, M. (2006). Using progress variables and embedded assessment to improve teaching and learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students’ understandings of chemical concepts. In S. H. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., McNeill, K., & Reiser, B. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., Reiser, B. J., Sutherland, L. M., & Fortus, D. (2012). Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology (IQWST). New York: Sangari Global Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Eichinger, D., Anderson, C. W., Berheimer, G., & Blakeslee, T. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Lesniak, K. (2006). Progression in children’s understanding of the matter concept from elementary to high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 320–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, G. (2003). Why models sometimes fail. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(7), 430–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margel, H., Eylon, B., & Scherz, Z. (2008). A longitudinal study of junior high school students’ conceptions of structure of materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 132–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merritt, J. (2010). Tracking students’ understanding of the particle nature of matter. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merritt, J., Schwartz, Y., Sutherland, L. M., & Krajcik, J. (2012). How can I smell things from a distance? In J. S. Krajcik, B. J. Reiser, L. M. Sutherland, & D. Fortus (Eds.), Investigating our world through science and technology (IQWST). New York: Sangari Global Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikelskis-Seifert, S., & Leisner, A. (2005). Investigation of effects and stability in teaching model competence. In K. Boersma et al. (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 337–351). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B., Samarapungavan, A., & Saglam, Y. (2005). Middle school students’ beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 581–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J. Pelligrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renstrom, L., Andersson, B., & Marton, F. (1990). Students’ conceptions of matter. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 555–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari, H., & Viiri, J. (2003). A research-based teaching sequence for teaching the concept of modeling to seventh-grade students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1333–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., et al. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 232–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement, 14(1&2), 1–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snir, J., Smith, C. L., & Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter. Science Education, 87(6), 794–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavy, R. (1991). Children’s ideas about matter. School Science and Curriculum, 91, 240–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. Y., Sutherland, L. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). Big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering. Arlington: NSTA press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2003). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: Fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5(1), 43–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M., & Sloan, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 181–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

 This research was conducted as part of the Investigating and Questioning our World through Science and Technology (IQWST) project and the Developing an Empirically-Tested Learning Progression for the Transformation of Matter to Inform Curriculum supported in part by the National Science Foundation Grants ESI 0101780 and DRL-0822038, respectively. Any opinions expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent either those of the funding agency or the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joi Merritt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

Lesson Descriptions and Learning Performances for the How can I smell things from a distance? Unit

 

Lesson no.

Description

Learning performance

Learning set 1

1

Students smell odors coming from two jars, recognizing that the jar must be open in order to smell an object. During this investigation, students draw pictures and write descriptions that represent their understanding. Next, the teacher facilitates a discussion to help students think about (a) how odors travel and (b) how scientific models help them to understand and explain this phenomenon

Students construct initial models to help them explain how odors travel across a room

Students describe one purpose of a scientific model

 

2

Students measure the mass and volume of different substances, including an inflated/deflated ball to understand that odors and air have mass and occupy space (have volume) and conclude that anything with mass and volume can be called “matter”

Students describe air as occupying space (having volume) and having mass

Students identify the relationship between the amount of a substance and the measured mass of that substance

Students characterize things as matter (or not matter) based on whether they have mass and volume

 

3

Students classify materials as solid, liquid, or gas. Students learn that matter can go through phase changes by observing the melting and cooling of menthol. As an optional activity, students can also observe the phase changes of water

Students identify and describe materials in three states of matter, using scientific terminology (solid, liquid, gas)

Students describe and compare the characteristics of solids, liquids, and gases

Students describe typical changes of states that occur when substances are heated or cooled

Students provide examples of materials changing states

 

4

Students investigate the ability of air to be added and removed, expanded and compressed in closed systems, using their own models to explain them. Through the critique of their models, students begin to understand that the building blocks of matter are particles. Empty space between the particles explains addition, subtraction, compression, and expansion

Students construct and revise models to explain and account for all of the following phenomena: subtraction, addition, compression, and expansion of gas in a closed container

 

5

Students develop an understanding that matter, in the gaseous state, contains particles that constantly move in linear motion by observing indicator paper changing color without being dipped in two different liquids. Students also view a simulation of odor traveling in a room with air. By the end of this lesson, the class develops a consensus model for the particle model of matter

Students construct models of the particle nature of gases

Students use their models to explain why indicator paper changes color and how smell travels

Students describe evaporation as particles of liquid changing phases to particles of gas without boiling

Learning set 2

6

Students observe and record the emission spectra of different gases. Through discussion of their data and modeling of different gases, students come to the idea that different materials have different properties; thus, we can distinguish among materials based on their properties

Students compare one substance to another, based on their properties

 

7

Students are introduced to the elements of the periodic table and the physical properties of elements, by observing and investigating different elements. Students use their results to explain that the elements have different properties because they are made up of different types of atoms. Students are also introduced to fundamental concept of the atom – as a basic particle of all elements

Students compare several elements to one another, based on observable properties and uses

Students define what an element is using the concept of atoms (and not particles)

 

8

Students create molecular models of oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water using gumdrops, Styrofoam balls, or other molecular modeling kits to represent atoms and molecules. The molecular models are then placed in a clear bag to represent air as a mixture of gases. The teacher facilitates discussions to help students understand these models and to introduce molecules as being composed of more than one atom that “stick” together and that different molecules make up different substances

Students use physical representations to explain the relationship between molecules and atoms

Students identify a sample item as either a substance or a mixture on a molecular level

 

9

Students rotate through stations smelling different substances. Each station will include a 2-D image of the molecule. Students recognize the fact that the same atoms (C, H, O) can be in different arrangements and that these different arrangements make a new substance with new properties (in this lesson, a different odor)

Students explain that different smells are caused by different arrangements of atoms in a molecule, using molecular models

 

10

Students observe the time it takes ammonia vapors at different temperatures to reach indicator paper

Students revisit the virtual simulation of air and odors in a room, manipulating temperature to show the difference in molecular movement at higher and lower temperatures

Students predict how molecules move at different temperatures

Students describe what happens to the molecules in a gas when it is cooled and heated

Students construct models to demonstrate that molecules have different speeds at different temperatures

Students explain why an odor moves faster at higher temperatures

 

11

Students observe the cooling and heating of a balloon placed in and removed from a dry ice bath. Students use the particle model to explain their observations. Finally, a mechanical model is used to demonstrate the relationship between temperature and volume in the heating and cooling of gases

Students describe what happens to the molecules in a gas when it is cooled and re-heated

Students explain the relationship between temperature and volume of gases

 

12

Students observe the heating and cooling of bromine and create models of bromine in both the gas and liquid phase to help understand the process of evaporation. Then, students observe the evaporation of alcohol and water from two different surfaces to understand that different substances, which are composed of different molecules, have different evaporation rates. Third, a teacher demonstration of water boiling is used to explain the process of boiling and what happens as a liquid undergoes a phase change to gas. Students model the process of boiling to develop understanding of this process. Finally, students observe the process of condensation, through water condensing and evaporating in a bottle and the condensation of water on the outside of a plastic cup filled with ice water

Students explain phase changes from gases to liquids and liquids to gases at the molecular level

 

13

Students observe the expansion of water when it is heated and create physical models to explain their observations. Students then use their models to predict what happens when dye is added to hot and cold water. Students discuss whether their predictions match their observations and revise their models accordingly

Students describe the difference between liquids at different temperatures, including the fact that liquids expand upon heating

Students explain the difference between liquids at different temperatures using a particle model

 

14

Students observe the phase change from a solid to a liquid by observing ice melting and through a teacher demonstration of melting an unscented, paraffin wax candle, creating models of solid and liquid water (or wax). Students observe sublimation using dry ice. Teacher reviews the menthol experiment (Lesson 3) and students create models of the molecules in the solid, liquid, and gaseous states

Students explain phase change from a solid to a liquid and from solid to a gas (sublimation), using the particle model

Students explain different states of same substance, including in their explanations that the particles are the same but behave differently

 

15

Students revisit the models they created during Lessons 1 and 5 and create models of smell. The class reviews what they learn and develop a class consensus particle model. Then, students use their consensus model to address a real-world problem

Students evaluate models (compare and critique their models of odor)

Students explain a related phenomenon, which is presented in a format of a short newspaper article, using the particle model

Students create a poster/brochure suggesting a solution to a real-world problem

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Merritt, J., Krajcik, J. (2013). Learning Progression Developed to Support Students in Building a Particle Model of Matter. In: Tsaparlis, G., Sevian, H. (eds) Concepts of Matter in Science Education. Innovations in Science Education and Technology, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5914-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics