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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baker, S., & Talley, L. (1972). The relationship of visualization skills to achievement in freshman chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 49(11), 775–776.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64–66.
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.
Davis, F., Davis, R. A., & Sarquis, M. (2006). Modern chemistry. Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
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.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghein, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80, 509–534.
Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98, 420–429.
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.
Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian World. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732–748.
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.
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.
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.
Kennedy, C. A., Wison, M., & Draney, K. (2005). Construct map. Computer program. Berkeley: Berkeley Evaluations and Assessment Research Center, University of California.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MacKinnon, G. (2003). Why models sometimes fail. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(7), 430–433.
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.
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.
Merritt, J. (2010). Tracking students’ understanding of the particle nature of matter. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
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.
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.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.
Nakhleh, M. B., Samarapungavan, A., & Saglam, Y. (2005). Middle school students’ beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 581–612.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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.
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.
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.
Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education, 62, 273–281.
Renstrom, L., Andersson, B., & Marton, F. (1990). Students’ conceptions of matter. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 555–569.
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.
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.
Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 165–205.
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.
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.
Stavy, R. (1991). Children’s ideas about matter. School Science and Curriculum, 91, 240–244.
Stevens, S. Y., Sutherland, L. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). Big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering. Arlington: NSTA press.
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.
Taber, K. S. (2003). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: Fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5(1), 43–84.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716–730.
Wilson, M., & Sloan, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 181–208.
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
Corresponding author
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
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5914-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5913-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5914-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)