A fine-grained analysis of students’ explanations based on their knowledge of the atomic structure

ABSTRACT The present work explores students’ repertoire of explicit knowledge fragments relevant to the atomic structure, seeking to answer which of those and through which routes are activated by students when constructing their explanations for some everyday situations. For this purpose, six tasks describing different situations were given to 225 students of the 10th and 11th grades of secondary schools from Northern Greece. Students’ responses were qualitatively analysed through a five-step scheme, where any discrete explicit knowledge fragments included in students’ explanations was extracted and categorised in relation to the atomic or subatomic characteristics. Extracted fragments of knowledge were also analysed according to their complexity and the ways that are organised when being activated by students. Implications for science education are analytically discussed.

[1]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas , 2005 .

[2]  C. Singh,et al.  Developing and validating a conceptual survey to assess introductory physics students’ understanding of magnetism , 2017 .

[3]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Comparison of Students' Knowledge Structure Coherence and Understanding of Force in the Philippines, Turkey, China, Mexico, and the United States , 2011 .

[4]  A. Redfors,et al.  University physics students' use of models in explanations of phenomena involving interaction between metals and electromagnetic radiation , 2001 .

[5]  G. Papageorgiou,et al.  Primary students’ conceptions of the Earth: Re-examining a fundamental research hypothesis on mental models , 2018 .

[6]  Aytekin Cokelez.  Junior High School Students’ Ideas about the Shape and Size of the Atom , 2012 .

[7]  Chia-Yu Wang,et al.  Exploring conceptual frameworks of models of atomic structures and periodic variations, chemical bonding, and molecular shape and polarity: a comparison of undergraduate general chemistry students with high and low levels of content knowledge , 2013 .

[8]  R. Duschl,et al.  Learning Introductory Quantum Physics: Sensori‐motor experiences and mental models , 2005 .

[9]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  A. diSessa,et al.  What changes in conceptual change , 1998 .

[11]  David Hammer,et al.  Student resources for learning introductory physics , 2000 .

[12]  A. diSessa.  Why “Conceptual Ecology” is a Good Idea , 2002 .

[13]  A. diSessa.  Toward an Epistemology of Physics , 1993 .

[14]  Gayle Nicoll,et al.  A report of undergraduates' bonding misconceptions , 2001 .

[15]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  CONCEPTUALIZING QUANTA: ILLUMINATING THE GROUND STATE OF STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF ATOMIC ORBITALS , 2002 .

[16]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  The significance of implicit knowledge for learning and teaching chemistry , 2014 .

[17]  Students' representations of the atomic structure – the effect of some individual differences in particular task contexts , 2016 .

[18]  Jari Lavonen,et al.  Coulombic interaction in Finnish middle school chemistry: a systemic perspective on students' conceptual structure of chemical bonding , 2015 .

[19]  David Fortus,et al.  Characterizing and representing student's conceptual knowledge of chemical bonding , 2012 .

[20]  M. Lemmer,et al.  Concept confusion and concept discernment in basic magnetism using analogical reasoning , 2017 .

[21]  Exploring Learners’ Conceptual Resources: Singapore A Level Students’ Explanations in the Topic of Ionisation Energy , 2007 .

[22]  Dimitrios Stamovlasis,et al.  The coherent versus fragmented knowledge hypotheses for the structure of matter: an investigation with a robust statistical methodology , 2013 .

[23]  K. Taber.  Lost and found in translation: guidelines for reporting research data in an ‘other’ language , 2018 .

[24]  Shawn Y. Stevens,et al.  Developing a Hypothetical Multi-Dimensional Learning Progression for the Nature of Matter. , 2009 .

[25]  Leman Tarhan,et al.  Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Understanding of Metallic Bonding , 2008 .

[26]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Upper Secondary Students' Understanding of the Basic Physical Interactions in Analogous Atomic and Solar Systems , 2013 .

[27]  Stella Vosniadou,et al.  Reframing the Classical Approach to Conceptual Change: Preconceptions, Misconceptions and Synthetic Models , 2012 .

[28]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry , 1996 .

[29]  Vicente A Talanquer,et al.  Threshold Concepts in Chemistry: The Critical Role of Implicit Schemas , 2015 .

[30]  Yehudit Judy Dori,et al.  Learning Quantum Chemistry via a Visual-Conceptual Approach: Students' Bidirectional Textual and Visual Understanding. , 2014 .

[31]  M. Aksela,et al.  The challenges of learning and teaching chemical bonding at different school levels using electrostatic interactions instead of the octet rule as a teaching model , 2018 .

[32]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Case studies and generalizability: grounded theory and research in science education , 2000 .

[33]  Vicente A Talanquer,et al.  Commonsense Chemistry: A Model for Understanding Students' Alternative Conceptions , 2006 .

[34]  Canan Nakiboğlu,et al.  INSTRUCTIONAL MISCONCEPTIONS OF TURKISH PROSPECTIVE CHEMISTRY TEACHERS ABOUT ATOMIC ORBITALS AND HYBRIDIZATION , 2003 .

[35]  Gregory Light,et al.  Identifying Atomic Structure as a Threshold Concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness , 2009 .

[36]  M. Chi.  Three Types of Conceptual Change: Belief Revision, Mental Model Transformation, and Categorical Shift , 2009 .

[37]  William R. Robinson.  Learning about Atoms, Molecules, and Chemical Bonds: A Case Study of Multiple-Model Use , 2000 .

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

[39]  S. Vosniadou.  On the Nature of Naïve Physics , 2002 .

[40]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  The Construction of Causal Schemes: Learning Mechanisms at the Knowledge Level , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[41]  Marc N. Muñiz,et al.  Upper-division chemistry students’ navigation and use of quantum chemical models , 2018 .

[42]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  High‐school Students' Conceptual Difficulties and Attempts at Conceptual Change: The case of basic quantum chemical concepts , 2009 .

[43]  J. Roschelle,et al.  Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition , 1994 .

[44]  Hans Niedderer,et al.  A learning pathway in high‐school level quantum atomic physics , 1998 .

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

[46]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: the case of basic quantum chemical concepts. Part 2. Students’ common errors, misconceptions and difficulties in understanding , 2008 .

[47]  David E. Brown.  Refocusing Core Intuitions: A Concretizing Role for Analogy in Conceptual Change. , 1993 .

[48]  David Hammer,et al.  Conceptual change in physics , 2013 .

[49]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Conceptual Resources for Learning Science: Issues of transience and grain‐size in cognition and cognitive structure , 2008 .

[50]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  The Atom in the Chemistry Curriculum: Fundamental Concept, Teaching Model or Epistemological Obstacle? , 2003 .

[51]  D. Stamovlasis,et al.  Studying the consistency between and within the student mental models for atomic structure , 2017 .