Elementary Children’s Shifting Views of Models and the Nature of Matter

This exploratory qualitative study focuses on one Grade 5 (ages 10–11) class who participated in an instructional sequence designed to scaffold their abilities to think critically about models and then to use various models to help them understand the particle nature of matter. Data showed that the extent to which the children exhibited a naïve or evolving understanding of models varied with the features of the model under consideration, as did their understanding of the particle nature of matter.RésuméCette étude qualitative exploratoire est centrée sur une classe de cinquième année (élèves âgés de 10–11 ans) ayant reçu une formation visant à soutenir et à structurer leur capacité de réflexion critique au sujet des modèles. On a ensuite utilisé différents modèles pour aider ces élèves à comprendre la nature particulaire de la matière. Les résultats montrent que la perception plus ou moins naïve des élèves, de même que leur niveau de compréhension de la nature particulaire de la matière, varie en fonction des caractéristiques des modèles considérés.

[1]  Michael R. Abraham,et al.  The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students , 1995 .

[2]  Vesna Ferk,et al.  Students' understanding of molecular structure representations , 2003 .

[3]  J. Creswell,et al.  Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry , 2000 .

[4]  Sevil Akaygun,et al.  Using Static and Dynamic Visuals to Represent Chemical Change at Molecular Level , 2005 .

[5]  D. Lewalter.  Cognitive Strategies for Learning from Static and Dynamic Visuals , 2003 .

[6]  Richard K. Lowe.  Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning , 1999 .

[7]  Michael J. Sanger.  Using Particulate Drawings to Determine and Improve Students' Conceptions of Pure Substances and Mixtures , 2000 .

[8]  David Fortus,et al.  Designing and Testing the MoDeLS Learning Progression , 2008 .

[9]  Rosária Justi,et al.  Science teachers' knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science , 2002 .

[10]  M. Varelas,et al.  Curricular Orientations, Experiences, and Actions: Graduate Students in Science and Mathematics Fields Work in Urban High School Classrooms. , 2009 .

[11]  Billie Eilam.  Drops of Water and of Soap Solution: Students' Constraining Mental Models of the Nature of Matter. , 2004 .

[12]  R. Duit.  On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. , 1991 .

[13]  J. Mathewson.  The visual core of science: definition and applications to education , 2005 .

[14]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The effects of self‐explaining when learning with text or diagrams , 2003 .

[15]  R. Kozma.  The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding , 2003 .

[16]  Haluk Özmen,et al.  The effects of conceptual change texts accompanied with animations on overcoming 11th grade students' alternative conceptions of chemical bonding , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[17]  David F. Treagust,et al.  A typology of school science models , 2000 .

[18]  Janice D. Gobert,et al.  The Relationship between Students' Epistemologies and Model-Based Reasoning. , 1997 .

[19]  Carol L. Smith,et al.  Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter , 2003 .

[20]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics , 2003 .

[21]  R. Kozma,et al.  Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena , 1997 .

[22]  M. Nakhleh,et al.  Elementary school children's beliefs about matter , 1999 .

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

[24]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[25]  Dorothy L. Gabel,et al.  Differential effects on the achievement of males and females of teaching the particulate nature of chemistry , 2002 .

[26]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom , 2001 .

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

[28]  Philip Johnson,et al.  Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substance‐based framework , 2009 .

[29]  A. Albanese,et al.  Why Do We Believe that an Atom is Colourless? Reflections about the Teaching of the Particle Model , 1997 .

[30]  M. Bannert,et al.  Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation , 2003 .

[31]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science , 2002 .

[32]  Elizabeth A. Davis,et al.  USING EDUCATIVE CURRICULUM MATERIALS TO SUPPORT TEACHERS IN DEVELOPING PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE FOR SCIENTIFIC MODELING , 2008 .

[33]  Marie-Claire Shanahan,et al.  Children Thinking About Models: Analyzing a Globe , 2010 .

[34]  Barbara C. Buckley,et al.  Investigating the Role of Representations and Expressed Models in Building Mental Models , 2000 .

[35]  D. Ardaç,et al.  Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change , 2004 .

[36]  Allan G. Harrison,et al.  Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry , 2000 .

[37]  Carol L. Smith,et al.  Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts , 1991 .

[38]  Joseph Nussbaum,et al.  Pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross‐age study , 1981 .

[39]  Mei-Hung Chiu,et al.  Promoting fourth graders' conceptual change of their understanding of electric current via multiple analogies , 2005 .

[40]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Teaching Science Effectively With Analogies: An Approach for Preservice and Inservice Teacher Education , 1998 .