Browse > Article

Assessing Students' Molecular-Level Representations of Solution Chemistry  

Lee, Soo-Young (National Center for Human Resources Development, Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.27, no.8, 2007 , pp. 677-692 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, university students were provided with repeated opportunities to represent their ideas graphically, and to examined via their drawings the extent to which they could visualize macroscopic phenomena microscopically. These drawings provided insight into the students' basic understanding of solution chemistry, revealing three conceptual models: the Undifferentiated Symbolic Model, the Particulate Model, and the Symbolic Ionic Model. Generally speaking, students who had poor conceptual understanding tended to exhibit the Undifferentiated Symbolic Model, whereas students with deeper understanding tended to employ the Symbolic Ionic Model. Students' conceptual comprehension was predictable from their graphical representations, which better elucidated what they actually comprehended about the phenomena, as opposed to their ambiguous verbal descriptions alone. The results of this study demonstrated a lack of development in university students' conceptions of solutions. Their weakness in understanding at the molecular-level became more obvious when they were asked to represent their ideas in drawings. Few students exhibited expert knowledge, and several common misconceptions were found, which indicated typical difficulties students have perceiving common phenomena at the molecular level. The findings of this study illustrate how eliciting graphical representations can be used to assess students' conceptual understandings.
Keywords
Molecular-level understanding; Graphical representations; Solutions chemistry; Assessment;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Cosgrove, M., & Osborne, R. (1981). Physical change (Working Paper 26): Learning in science project. Unpublished manuscript, Hamilton, N.Z
2 Edens, K. M., & Potter, E. F. (2001). Promoting conceptual understanding through pictorial representation. Studies in Art Education, 42(3), 214-233   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Gabel, D., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695-697   DOI
4 Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83   DOI
5 Kang, H., Kim, B., & Noh, T. (2005). Drawing and writing as methods to assist students in connecting and integrating external representations in learning the particulate nature of matter with multiple representations. Journal of Korea Association of Research in Science Education. 25(4), 533-540
6 Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translation of representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883-903   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 117-147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
8 Laverty, D. T., & McGarvey, J. E. B. (1991). A 'constructivist' approach to learning. Education in Chemistry, 28(4), 99-102
9 Lemke, J. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Noh, T., & Jeon, K. (1997). The instructional effect of a four-stage problem solving approach visually emphasizing the molecular level of matter upon students' conceptions and problem solving ability. Journal of Korea Association of Research in Science Education, 17(3), 313-312
11 Noh, T., & Scharmann, L. C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students' conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 199-217   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Prieto, T., Blanco, A., & Rodriguez, A. (1989). The ideas of 11 to 14 year old students about the nature of solutions. International Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 451-463   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Raviolo, A. (2001). Assessing students' conceptual understanding of solubility equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(5), 629-631   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Renstroem, L., Andersson, B., & Marton, F. (1990). Students' conceptions of matter. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 555-569   DOI
15 Schollum, B. (1981). Chemical change (Working Paper 27): Learning in science project. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato
16 Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G., & Pine, J. (1991). Performance assessment in science. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 347-362   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Wu, H-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Boo, H.-K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students' (Aged 16-18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85, 568-585   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 449-459   DOI
20 Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students' visulisation of a chemical reation. Education in Chemistry, 117-120
21 Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227   DOI
22 Noh, T., & You, J., & Han, J. (2003). The effect of molecular level drawing-based instruction. Journal of Korea Association of Research in Science Education, 23(6), 609-616
23 Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London, New York: Routledge
24 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. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-144   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521-534   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Dove, J. E., Everett, L. A., & Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Exploring a hydrological concepts through children's drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 485-497   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Ebenezer, J. V., & Gaskell, P. J. (1995). Relational conceptual change in solution chemistry. Science Education, 79(1), 1-17   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Stavridou, H., & Solomounidou, C. (1989). Physical phenomena-chemical phenomena: Do pupils make the distinction? International Journal of Science Education, 11, 83-92   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translation among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
30 Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Windschitl, M. A. (1998). Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(12), 1658-1661   DOI
31 Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro and micro chemistry. School Science Review, 64(227), 377-379
32 Ebenezer, J. V., & Erickson, G. L. (1996). Chemistry students' conceptions of solubility: A phenomenography. Science Education, 80(2), 181-201   DOI
33 Kozma, R., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In R. G. S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, & H. Mandel (Eds.), International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 41-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
34 Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An Expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
35 Nurrenbem, S., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-509   DOI
36 Kang, H., & Noh, T. (2006). The influence of situational interst, attention, and cognitive effort on drawing as a method to assist students to connect and integrate multiple external representations. Journal of Korea Association of Research in Science Education. 26(4), 510-517
37 Gabel, D. (1993). Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193-194   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628   DOI
39 Kozma, R. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. J. R. Kozma (Ed.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advance designs for technologies of learning (pp. 11-46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
40 Driver, R. (1985). Beyond appearance: The conservation of matter under physical and 6chemical transformations. In R. Driver, E. Guesne & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's ideas in science (1 ed., pp. 145-169). Philadelphia: Open University Press
41 Jones, T., & Berger, C. (1995, April). Students' use of multimedia science instruction: The MTV generation? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco
42 Ault, A. (2001). How to say how much: Amounts and stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(10), 1347-1349   DOI   ScienceOn
43 Randell, S. (1995). Generating thinking-aloud protocols: Impacts on the narrative writing of college students. American Journal of Psychology, 108(1), 89-98   DOI   ScienceOn
44 Fensham, N., & Fensham, P. (1987). Descriptions and frameworks of solutions and rections in solutions. Research in Science Education, 17, 139-148   DOI
45 Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 91-142   DOI   ScienceOn
46 Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949-968   DOI   ScienceOn
47 Wu, H-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 456-492
48 Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317-337   DOI   ScienceOn
49 Brosnan, T., & Reynolds, Y. (2001). Students' explanations of chemical phenomena: Macro and micro differences. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(1), 69-78   DOI   ScienceOn
50 Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 233-249). London: Kluwer Academic Press
51 Schank, P., & Kozma, R. (2002). Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(3), 253-279
52 Lee, S-Y. (2005). Investigating student's understandings of light using Dynamic Science Assessment method. Journal of Korean Science Education, 25(1), 41-56
53 Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
54 Gabel, D., Briner, D., & Haines, D. (1992). Modeling with magnets: A unified approach to chemistry problem solving. The Science Teacher, 59(Mar), 58-63
55 Bowen, C. W. (1990). Representational systems used by graduate students while preblem solving in organic synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), 351-370   DOI
56 Nussbaum, J. (1985). The particulate nature of matter in the gaseous phase. In R. Driver, E. Guesne & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press
57 Pozo, J. I., Gomez C., & Miguel A. (2005). The embodied nature of implicit theories: The consistency of ideas about the nature of matter. Cognition & Instruction, 23(3), 351-387   DOI   ScienceOn
58 Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as a social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68, 35-59   DOI   ScienceOn
59 Singer, J. E., Wu, H-K., & Tal, R. (2003). Students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter. School Science and Mathematics, 103(1), 28-44   DOI   ScienceOn
60 Han, J. Y., Lee, J. Y., Kwack, J. H., & Noh, T. (2006). The effects of drawing and analyzing pictures in concept learning of the particulate nature of matter: A comparison based on student visual learning style. Journal of Korea Association of Research in Science Education. 26(1), 9-15
61 Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2000). Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 521-537   DOI   ScienceOn
62 Unsworth, L. (2001). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 585-609   DOI   ScienceOn