DEVELOPING AN UNDERSTANDING OF IONS IN JUNIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHEMISTRY

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Bruce Waldrip (1) Bruce.Waldrip@monash.edu
  Vaughan Prain (2) V.Prain@latrobe.edu.au
• 关键词：KEY WORDS bonding – ; chemistry – ; conceptual understanding – ; ions – ; student ; generated representations – ; student understanding
• 刊名：International Journal of Science & Math Education
• 出版年：2012
• 出版时间：October 2012
• 年：2012
• 卷：10
• 期：5
• 页码：1191-1213
• 全文大小：199.1 KB
• 参考文献：1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.
  2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
  3. Ainsworth, S. (2008a). How do animations influence learning? In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction: Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 37–67). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  4. Ainsworth, S. (2008b). How should we evaluate multimedia learning environments? (pp. 37–67). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. In J.-F. Rouet, R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Understanding multimedia documents (pp. 249–265). New York: Springer.
  5. Ainsworth, S. (2008c). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhlel (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191–208). New York: Springer.
  6. Ballet, K., Kelchtermans, G. & Loughran, J. (2006). Beyond intensification towards a scholarship of practice: Analysing changes in teachers’ work lives. Teachers and Teaching, 12(2), 209–229.
  7. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B. & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, 3, 89–92.
  8. Briggs, H., & Holding, B. (1986). Aspects of secondary students’ understanding of elementary ideas in chemistry. Full report, Children’s Learning in Science Project. Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
  9. Cassen, T. (1981). A versatile program for drill in inorganic nomenclature and formula writing. Journal of Chemical Education, 58, 49.
  10. Chimeno, J. (2000). How to make learning chemical nomenclature fun, exciting, and palatable. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 144.
  11. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363.
  12. Creagh, C. (2008). Diagrams: Useful tools for investigating a student’s understanding of buoyancy. Teaching Science, 54(4), 48–50.
  13. Crute, T. D. (2000). Classroom nomenclature games—BINGO. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 481.
  14. Davidowitz, B., Chittleborough, G. & Murray, E. (2010). Student-generated submicro diagrams: A useful tool for teaching and learning chemical equations and stoichiometry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 154–164.
  15. diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.
  16. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography—Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel: http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.
  17. Ehrlen, K. (2009). Drawings as representations of children’s conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 41–58.
  18. Fernelius, W. C., Loening, K. & Adams, R. M. (1977). Derivatives of oxo acids II. Insertion or infix nomenclature (the Drake Report). Journal of Chemical Education, 54, 610–611.
  19. Fernelius, W. C., Loening, K. & Adams, R. M. (1978). Derivatives of oxo acids III. Functional derivatives. Journal of Chemical Education, 55, 30–31.
  20. Ford, M. & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining literacy learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32.
  21. Giere, R. & Moffatt, B. (2003). Distributed cognition: Where the cognitive and the social merge. Social Studies of Science, 33, 301–310.
  22. Gilbert, J. (2005). Visualisation in science education. New York: Springer.
  23. Gilbert, J. & Treagust, D. (2009). Mutliple representations in chemical education. New York: Springer.
  24. Greeno, J. G. & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–368.
  25. Hand, B., Alvenmann, D. E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B. J., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Prain, V. & Yore, L. D. (2003). Message from the “Island Group”: What Is Literacy in Science Literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 607–615.
  26. Jewitt, C. (2007). A multimodal perspective on textuality and contexts. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15, 275–289.
  27. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J. & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53, 5–18.
  28. 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.
  29. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.
  30. Kozma, R. & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–146). London: Kluwer.
  31. 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: International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 117–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  32. Lind, G. (1992). Teaching inorganic nomenclature. A systematic approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 613.
  33. Loughran, J. J., Berry, A. & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.
  34. Loughran, J. J., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R. F. & Mulhall, P. (2001). Science cases in action: Documenting science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through PaP-eRs. Research in Science Education, 31(1), 267–289.
  35. Mulford, D. R. & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for alternative conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 739–744.
  36. Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
  37. Peirce, C. S. (1931–58). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, (Eds. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss (Vols. 1–6) & A. Burks (Vols. 7–8)). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
  38. Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: The potential role of teacher communities: A response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 417–431.
  39. Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.
  40. Shaw, D. (2003). Inorganic nomenclature. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 711.
  41. Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.
  42. Tobin, K. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: AAAS.
  43. Tytler, R., Peterson, S. & Prain, V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: Learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science, 52(1), 12–17.
  44. Van der Meij, J. & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 199–212.
  45. Waldrip, B. & Prain, V. (2006). Changing representations to learn primary science concepts. Teaching Science, 54(4), 17–21.
  46. Waldrip, B., Prain, V. & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80.
  47. Wirtz, M. J., Kaufmann, J. & Hawley, G. (2006). Nomenclature made practical: Student discovery of the nomenclature rules. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(4), 595–598.
• 作者单位：1. Faculty of Education, Monash University, Churchill, 3820 Australia2. Faculty of Education, La Trobe University, Bendigo, 3552 Australia
• ISSN：1573-1774

文摘

There is growing research interest in the challenges and opportunities learners face in representing scientific understandings, processes and reasoning. These challenges include integrating verbal, visual and mathematical modes in science discourse to make strong conceptual links between representations and classroom experiences. Our paper reports on a project that aimed to identify practical and theoretical issues entailed in a representation-intensive approach to guiding students’ conceptual learning in science. We focus here on a teacher developing students’ understanding of the formation of ions and molecules. We argue that the representations produced by students in this process met the criteria for representational competence proposed by diSessa (Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331, 2004) and Kozma & Russell (2005). The students understood that an effective representation needed to show relevant information, focus on pertinent points, be self-sufficient in its claims about the topic and provide coherent links between different parts of the representation. The final activity showed that their representations reached Kozma & Russell’s (2005) highest level of competence, where the students were able to use specific features of their representations to critique their suitability for explaining bonding and were able to show how their representation linked to the periodic table as a representation. We conclude by considering the implications of these findings.