Consistency of Students’ Ideas across Evaporation, Condensation, and Boiling

Existing research on students’ conceptions contain competing philosophical positions concerning the nature of students’ ideas—whether those ideas are coherent, systematic and theory-like, or fragmented and incoherent. Existing research has also focused primarily on studies of individual conceptions rather than investigating multiple, related conceptions. Nevertheless, there is wide agreement among researchers and teachers alike that the ideas students bring to a learning situation are fertile ground for investigation, and that students’ ideas should be taken into consideration when planning science instruction. The purpose of this study was to examine the representational, conceptual framework, and contextual consistency aspects of two students’ ideas across concepts of evaporation, condensation, and boiling. Knowing the consistency students express for each specific concept, and how well they integrate these related concepts, would offer insights that could potentially impact student learning. We present two case studies here that highlight the degree of consistency expressed by two students across different representations for each target concept and in instances where these conceptions are related to one another. Findings from this study highlight the need for attention to the consistency of students’ ideas across multiple, related concepts. Implications from this study support our recommendation for metaconceptual teaching strategies that would help students examine different representations for the same concept and also to examine the consistency of their ideas across multiple conceptions.

[1]  M. Beeth.  Facilitating Conceptual Change Learning: The Need for Teachers to Support Metacognition , 1998 .

[2]  Philip Johnson.  Children's Understanding of Changes of State Involving the Gas State, Part 1: Boiling Water and the Particle Theory. , 1998 .

[3]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The functions of multiple representations , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Anthony S. Travis,et al.  Children's Views Concerning Phase Changes. , 1991 .

[5]  Roger Osborne,et al.  Children's conceptions of the changes of state of water , 1983 .

[6]  Philip Johnson,et al.  Children's understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, Part 2: Evaporation and condensation below boiling point , 1998 .

[7]  S. Gelman,et al.  Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity In Cognition And Culture , 1994 .

[8]  Jin-Yi Chang.  Teachers college students' conceptions about evaporation, condensation, and boiling , 1999 .

[9]  N. Canpolat,et al.  Turkish Undergraduates' Misconceptions of Evaporation, Evaporation Rate, and Vapour Pressure , 2006 .

[10]  Russell Tytler,et al.  Teaching and Learning about Force with a Representational Focus: Pedagogy and Teacher Change , 2010 .

[11]  A. H. Johnstone,et al.  The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand , 1993 .

[12]  G. Hatano,et al.  Conceptual change in Naïve biology , 2013 .

[13]  S. Vosniadou.  Analogical reasoning as a mechanism in knowledge acquisition: a developmental perspective , 1988 .

[14]  Boo Hong Kwen.  Consistency and Inconsistency in A Level Students' Understandings of a Number of Chemical Reactions. , 1996 .

[15]  Yezdan Boz,et al.  Turkish Pupils’ Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter , 2006 .

[16]  N. J. Cook,et al.  Constructing naive theories of motion on the fly , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[17]  John W. Renner,et al.  Student Understandings and Misunderstandings of States of Matter and Density Changes , 1982 .

[18]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Progressing Science Education: Constructing the Scientific Research Programme into the Contingent Nature of Learning Science , 2009 .

[19]  Elizabeth Engel Clough,et al.  A Study of Consistency in the Use of Students' Conceptual Frameworks Across Different Task Contexts. , 1986 .

[20]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[21]  Igal Galili,et al.  Stages of children's views about evaporation , 1994 .

[22]  Mustafa Sözbilir,et al.  Prospective Teachers' Misconceptions of Vaporization and Vapor Pressure , 2006 .

[23]  Stella Vosniadou,et al.  International handbook of research on conceptual change , 2013 .

[24]  A. Savinainen,et al.  The Force Concept Inventory as a Measure of Students Conceptual Coherence , 2008 .

[25]  Reinout W. Wiers,et al.  Children's thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence , 1997 .

[26]  Michael E. Beeth,et al.  Teaching for Conceptual Change , 1998 .

[27]  S. Vosniadou.  Knowledge Acquisition and Conceptual Change , 1992 .

[28]  K. Taber.  Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure , 2000 .

[29]  Jennifer B. Esterly,et al.  Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force , 2004 .

[30]  Saouma BouJaoude,et al.  A study of the nature of students' understandings about the concept of burning , 1991 .

[31]  Fred Goldberg,et al.  Research in physics learning : theoretical issues and empirical studies : proceedings of an international workshop held at the University of Bremen, March 4-8, 1991 , 1992 .

[32]  Justin Dillon,et al.  Consistency of students' explanations about combustion , 1997 .

[33]  E. Wiebe,et al.  The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations , 2008 .

[34]  Ellin Kofsky Scholnick,et al.  Conceptual Development : Piaget's Legacy , 1999 .

[35]  M. Beeth,et al.  Analyzing the Effect of Metaconceptual Teaching Practices on Students’ Understanding of Force and Motion Concepts , 2009 .

[36]  Tina Seufert.  Supporting Coherence Formation in Learning from Multiple Representations , 2003 .

[37]  A. Gopnik,et al.  The theory theory. , 1994 .

[38]  How consistently do students use their alternative conceptions? , 1993 .

[39]  E. Mortimer,et al.  Conceptual change or Conceptual Profile change? , 1995 .

[40]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  A bird's-eye view of the "pieces" vs "coherence" controversy (from the "pieces" side of the fence") , 2013 .

[41]  Norman G. Lederman,et al.  Handbook of Research on Science Education , 2023 .

[42]  J. Case,et al.  An investigation of tertiary students' understanding of evaporation, condensation and vapour pressure , 2004 .

[43]  S. Vosniadou.  The Framework Theory Approach to the Problem of Conceptual Change , 2009 .

[44]  Kenneth Tobin,et al.  International handbook of science education , 1998 .

[45]  Cedric Linder,et al.  A challenge to conceptual change , 1993 .

[46]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Progressing Science Education , 2009 .

[47]  Russell Tytler,et al.  Representational Issues in Students Learning About Evaporation , 2007 .

[48]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[49]  Naoki Ueno,et al.  Reconsidering P-Prims Theory From the Viewpoint of Situated Cognition , 1993 .

[50]  J. Pozo,et al.  The Embodied Nature of Implicit Theories: The Consistency of Ideas About the Nature of Matter , 2005 .

[51]  Russell Tytler,et al.  A comparison of year 1 and year 6 students' conceptions of evaporation and condensation: dimensions of conceptual progression , 2000 .

[52]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 1997 .

[53]  A. Ortony,et al.  Similarity and Analogical Reasoning , 1991 .