Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.5.0437

Using a Learning Progression to Characterize Korean Secondary Students' Knowledge and Submicroscopic Representations of the Particle Nature of Matter  

Shin, Namsoo (University of Michigan)
Koh, Eun Jung (Seoul National University)
Choi, Chui Im (Seoul National University)
Jeong, Dae Hong (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.34, no.5, 2014 , pp. 437-447 More about this Journal
Abstract
Learning progressions (LP), which describe how students may develop more sophisticated understanding over a defined period of time, can inform the design of instructional materials and assessment by providing a coherent, systematic measure of what can be regarded as "level appropriate." We developed LPs for the nature of matter for grades K-16. In order to empirically test Korean students, we revised one of the constructs and associated assessment items based on Korean National Science Standards. The assessment was administered to 124 Korean secondary students to measure their knowledge and submicroscopic representations, and to assign them to a level of learning progression for the particle nature of matter. We characterized the level of students' understanding and models of the particle nature of matter, and described how students interpret various representations of atoms and molecules to explain scientific phenomena. The results revealed that students have difficulties in understanding the relationship between the macroscopic and molecular levels of phenomena, even in high school science. Their difficulties may be attributed to a limited understanding of scientific modeling, a lack of understanding of the models used to represent the particle nature of matter, or limited understanding of the structure of matter. This work will inform assessment and curriculum materials development related to the fundamental relationship between macroscopic, observed phenomena and the behavior of atoms and molecules, and can be used to create individualized learning environments. In addition, the results contribute to scientific research literature on learning progressions on the nature of matter.
Keywords
learning progression; submicroscopic representations; the particle nature of matter;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Stevens, S. Y., & Shin, N. (2010). An investigation into students' interpretations of submicroscopic representations. Poster presented at the International Conferences of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA.
2 Stevens, S. Y., Shin, N., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009a). Towards a model for the development of an empirically tested learning progression. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA, USA.
3 Stevens, S.Y., Shin, N., & Peek-Brown, D. (2013). Learning progressions as a guide for developing meaningful science learning: A new framework for old ideas. Journal of Education Quimica, 24(4), 381-390.
4 Stevens, S., Sutherland, L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009b). The big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
5 Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009a). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Acher, A., Davis, B., Krajcik, J., & Hug, B. (2009b). Models: Defining a learning progression for scientific modeling. Paper presented at the Learning Progression in Science (LeaPS) conference, Iowa City, IA, USA.
7 Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1369.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Tuckey, H., & Selvaratnam, M. (1993). Studies involving three-dimensional visualisation skills in chemistry: A review. Studies in Science Education, 21(1), 99-121.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Wu, H. K., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Pedagogical affordances of multiple external representations in scientific processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 754-767.   DOI
10 National Research Council. (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. In Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
11 NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
12 Noh, T,, Yoon, M., Kang, H., & Han, J. (2007). Semiotic analysis of the inscriptions representing concept of atom and molecule in the 9th grade science textbooks. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 51(5), 423-432.   과학기술학회마을   DOI
13 Noh, T,, Yoon, M., & Han, J. (2009). Students' comprehension and interpretation process of inscriptions representing the concept of atom and molecule. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 53(3), 355-367.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 14(1-2), 1-98.
15 Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35-59.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Scalise, K., & Gifford, B. (2006). Computer-based assessment in e-learning: A framework for constructing "intermediate constraint" questions and tasks for technology platforms. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(6), 1-45.
17 Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a theoretical learning progression for atomic structure and inter-atomic interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 47(6), 687-715.
19 Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers' views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., & Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modelling. Science and Children, 46(2), 40-44.
21 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), 105-143.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
23 Maeng, S. H., Seong, Y. S., & Jang, S. H. (2013). Present states methodological features and an exemplar study of the research on learning progressions. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 161-180.   과학기술학회마을   DOI
24 Ministry of Education. (2011). The science curriculum of the republic of Korea 2009 revised version. Proclamation of the ministry of education, science and technology #2011-361.
25 Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675-698.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. In R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
27 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on conceptual framework for the new K-12 science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
28 Deboer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.   DOI
29 Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672.   DOI
30 Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of molecules: Implication for teaching chemistry. Studies in Science Education, 80, 509-534.
32 Gilbert, J. (1993). Models & modelling in science education. Hatfield, UK: The Association for Science Education.
33 Gilbert, J. K., Pietrocola, M., Zylbersztajn, A., & Faranco, C. (2000). Science and education: Notion of reality, theory and model, In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 19-40). Netherlands: Springer.
34 Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35 Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352-381.   DOI
36 Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopoic world. In J. K. Gilbert, O. D. Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel, (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189-212). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
37 Hodgson, T. (1995). Secondary mathematics modeling: Issues and challenges. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 351-358.   DOI
38 Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S. W., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670-697.   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Bamberger, Y. M., & Davis, E. A. (2013). Middle-school science students' scientific modelling performances across content areas and within a learning progression. International Journal of Science Education. 35(2), 213-238.   DOI
40 Chi, M. T., Slotta, J. D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27-43.   DOI   ScienceOn
41 Cobern, W. W., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1998). Cultural aspects of learning science. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education part 1 (pp. 39-52). Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
42 College Board (2009). Science college board standards for college sucess. New York, NY: The college board.
43 National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Committee on how people learn, a targeted report for teachers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.