Atoms, elements, molecules, and matter: An investigation into the congenitally blind adolescents' conceptual frameworks on the nature of matter

Abstract

This qualitative multiple case study explored the conceptual frameworks of two congenitally blind male adolescents on the nature of matter. We examined participants' responses on four tactile investigations focused on concepts and processes associated with matter changes. The matter changes investigated were dissolution, chemical change, expansion, and condensation. Individual interview and model-making sessions comprised the primary data collection, whereas journal writing and focus group interviews provided additional, secondary data. Participants' responses during matter activities were analyzed by using three data frames: structural views of matter, types of understanding of matter changes, and conceptual consistency of students' explanatory schemes. Coding of the responses identified macro-(physically observable) and microparticulate (invisible) views of matter and both scientifically accurate and alternate understandings of matter changes coexisting within one response set. Data analysis led to the development of individual meandering mind maps as an analytical tool that illustrates the shifting of each participant's thinking between the macro-and microparticulate views of matter. A meandering mind map utilized in the study consists of a macroparticulate outer layer, microparticulate inner layer, and an interface layer that includes lynchpin concepts compound, molecule, atom, and element. The lynchpin concepts are perceived to mediate and scaffold cognitive shifts between the macroparticulate and the microparticulate views of matter. During individual interviews, each participant's responses were coded to one of the three categories, plottedCorrespondence to: Sinikka M. Smothers;

Framing students’ progression in understanding matter: a review of previous research

“…Of course, students develop their understanding in distinctive ways depending on multiple factors such as the amount or kind of teaching they receive. Also, the studies from which the above model is derived provide evidence that students' understanding is specific to the task or context (Crespo & Pozo, 2004;Gómez et al, 2006;Smothers & Goldston, 2010). We will enlarge this rudimentary model in the following section in order to provide details of students' understanding related to the four aspects of matter.…”

“…Level 2: Students are able to categorise substances and to attribute characteristic properties to these categories (metals, non-metals and salts); therefore, students use 'actions' or 'similarities' to classify substances and matter (Krnel et al, 2005). Students describe physical changes as modification of the original substance without using the particle model for a reasonable explanation (Krnel et al, 2005;Smothers & Goldston, 2010). Particles that are embedded in matter are often used in explanatory approaches (Ayas et al, 2010).…”

“…Level 4: Students are able to use a differentiated particle model to explain physical properties and changes of matter Pimthong et al, 2012). They dwell especially on the atom structure and the different interactions between atoms (Adadan, Irving, & Trundle, 2009;Smothers & Goldston, 2010;Stevens et al, 2010;Talanquer, 2009). Level 5: Students are able to trace physical properties of matter and conditions for physical changes back to the properties of collections of particles (Johnson, 2005;Papageorgiou et al, 2010;Salta & Tzougraki, 2011).…”

“…nucleus-shell, shell model) (Adbo & Taber, 2009). They differentiate between atoms and molecules and can distinguish between different bond types (Gómez et al, 2006;Löfgren & Helldén, 2009;Othman et al, 2008;Smothers & Goldston, 2010). Level 5: Students are able to describe and to explain the structure of complex molecules (Urhahne, Nick, & Schanze, 2009).…”

“…Smothers and Goldston (2010) classified blind students' understanding of matter through two categories: a macro-particulate and micro-particulate understanding. A more detailed set of levels was applied by García Franco and Taber (2009): (0) no explanation, (1) no notion of particles in students' explanations, (2) particles used in a non-scientific way and (3) particles used in a scientific way.…”