Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.5.304

The Analysis of Thought Change of 11th Grade Students related to Conservation of Mass and Volume Change by Responsive Teaching  

Jo, Na-Yeon (Wansan High School)
Pail, Seoung-Hey (Department of Chemistry Education, Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Chemical Society / v.64, no.5, 2020 , pp. 304-317 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study was conducted on four 11th grade students at a high school in a small town to determine the effectiveness of responsive teaching. The three phases of the responsive teaching method proposed in the previous study were subdivided into six stages; Step 1 is elicitation of students' thoughts related to macroscopic world, Step 2 is drawing of students' early thoughts related to microscopic world, Step 3 is disciplinary connections with ideas of the particle, Step 4 is to clarify the learner's thoughts on the particle by the teacher's involvement, Step 5 is deepening students' thoughts, and Step 6 is expanding ideas. In Step 4, students came to the recognition that the cause of mass was atoms and that the cause of volume was molecules. In Step 5, students led to a shift in thinking that could ignore the volume of the molecules themselves through the properties of protons and neutrons that affect mass from a particle perspective. In the Step 6 of expanding ideas, students explained molecular motion by the concept of material point which ignores the volume of particles. This steps gave students perspectives on the relationship between the mass and volume of particles required by Avogadro's law. The students recognized that some systems could be studied only indirectly because they were too small, too large, too fast, or too slow to observe directly.
Keywords
Responsive teaching; Mass; Volume; High school students;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Stevens, S. Y.; Shin, N.; Peek-Brown, D. Journal of Education Quimica. 2013, 24, 381.
2 Pierson, J. L. The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning 2008, The University of Texas at Austin.
3 Robertson, A. D.; Atkins, L. J.; Levin, D. M.; Richards, J. What is responsive teaching? 2016 New York, NY, Routledge. 1-35.
4 Ball, D. L. Elem. School J. 1993, 93, 373.   DOI
5 Maskiewicz, A.C.; Winters, V. Paper Presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2010, Chicago.
6 Maskiewicz, A. C.; Winters, V. A. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 429.   DOI
7 Kavanagh, S.S.; Metz, M.; Hauser, M.; Fogo, B.; Taylor, M.; Carlson, J. Practicing responsiveness: Using approximations of teaching to develop teachers' responsiveness to students' ideas. Journal of Teacher Education 2019 Advance online publication.
8 Bain, R. B. Rounding up unusual suspects: Facing the authority hidden in the history classroom 2006 Teachers College Record, 108(10), 2080-2114.   DOI
9 Niaz, M. Sci. Ed. 1995, 79, 19.   DOI
10 Moje, E. B. Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise 2015 Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 254-278.   DOI
11 Levin, D. M.; Grant, T.; Hammer, D. Attending and responding to student thinking in science 2012 The american biology Teacher, 74(3), 158-162.   DOI
12 Empson, S.B.; Jacobs, V.R. Learning to listen to children's mathematics 2008, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. pp. 257-281.
13 Shin, N.; Koh, E. J.; Choi, C. I.; Jeong, D. H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2014, 34, 437.   DOI
14 Sangmyeon, A. 청람과학교육연구논총 1993, 3, 368.
15 Hammer, D. M. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 1996, 5, 97.   DOI
16 Radoff, J.; Hammer, D. Attention to Student Framing in Responsive Teaching Routledge: New York, 2016; pp 189-202.
17 Hogan, K. International Journal of Science Education 1999, 21, 855.   DOI
18 Hammer, D.; Sikorski, T. R. Implications of complexity for research on learning progressions. Science Education 2015, 99, 424.   DOI
19 Nayeon, J.; Kim, E.; Paik, S.-H. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2019, 63, 123.   DOI
20 Lee, J.; Lee, B.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2018, 62, 243.   DOI
21 Watkins, J.; McCormick, M.; BethkeWendell, K.; Spencer K.; Milto, E.; Portsmore, M.; Hammer, D. Sci. Ed. 2018, 102, 548.   DOI
22 Colestck, A. A.; Sherin, M. G. What Teachers Notice When They Notice Student Thinking: Teacher-Identified Purposes for Attending to Students' Mathematical Thinking. In Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics, Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D. Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2016; pp. 126-144.
23 Harrer, B. W.; Flood, V. J.; Wittmann, M. C. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 2013, 9, 023101.   DOI
24 Hammer, D.; van Zee, E. Seeing the Science in Children's Thinking: Case Studies of Student Inquiry in Physical Science; Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, 2012.
25 diSessa, A. A. Cognition and Instruction 1993, 10, 105.   DOI
26 Colley, C.; Windschitl, M. Rigor in elementary science students' discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education 2016, 100, 1009.   DOI
27 Portides, D. P. Science & Education 2007, 16, 699.   DOI
28 Brodie, K. Working with learners' mathematical thinking: Towards a language of description for changing pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education 2011, 27, 174.   DOI