Abstract:Characterizing how students construct causal mechanistic explanations for chemical phenomena can provide us with important insights into the ways that students develop understanding of chemistry concepts. Here, we present two qualitative studies of undergraduate general chemistry students' reasoning about the causes of London dispersion forces in nonpolar species such as helium atoms. In the first study, we used semi-structured interviews to examine students' verbal explanations for how and why electrical inte… Show more
“…Rather, worked examples should focus on hydrogen bonds and van der Waals interactions, as our data show that students’ memorized definitions are not adequate for protein structure–function problem solving. This finding is consistent with the literature . Alternatively, preparation for future learning activities could be designed that direct students’ attention to the same problem features, yet give them opportunities to activate their prior knowledge before being asked to solve a problem.…”
“…Rather, worked examples should focus on hydrogen bonds and van der Waals interactions, as our data show that students’ memorized definitions are not adequate for protein structure–function problem solving. This finding is consistent with the literature . Alternatively, preparation for future learning activities could be designed that direct students’ attention to the same problem features, yet give them opportunities to activate their prior knowledge before being asked to solve a problem.…”
“…The specific connections or relationships that students establish between concepts and ideas are indicative of their reasoning sophistication. A variety of authors have explored the nature of these relationships seeking to characterise different types of reasoning (Tamir, 1991;Assaraf and Orion, 2005;Sevian and Talanquer, 2014;Becker et al, 2016;Weinrich and Talanquer, 2016). These studies have shown that student reasoning may range from merely descriptive to mechanistic for individuals at the same educational level.…”
Section: Exploring Causal Reasoningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In recent years, there has been increased interest in better characterising and fostering students' ability to generate causal mechanistic explanations (Grotzer, 2003;Russ et al, 2008Russ et al, , 2009Becker et al, 2016;Southard et al, 2017;Talanquer, 2018). These types of explanations are a hallmark of scientific reasoning and students are expected to generate them using normative concepts and ideas (NRC, 2013).…”
The central goal of this research study was to characterise the different types of reasoning manifested by high school chemistry students when building initial written explanations of a natural phenomenon. In particular, our study participants were asked to explain why a mixture of water and alcohol works as an antifreeze. Data collected in the form of written explanations were analysed using a mechanistic reasoning framework based on the characterisation of system components (e.g., entities, properties, activities, organisation) and paying attention to the causal models invoked by the participants in their explanations. Our analysis revealed that students at the same educational level construct a wide range of explanations for the same phenomenon that are indicative of different reasoning modes going from descriptive to relational to simple causal to emerging mechanistic. Although the explanations generated by students in our sample were not very sophisticated in terms of the causal models on which they relied, some participants were capable of generating mechanistic explanations using particulate models of matter. The framework for analysis introduced in this contribution can be of use to teachers and researchers in the characterisation of student reasoning.
“…The literature has shown that construct maps are productive tools for assessing the development of students' knowledge and skills in chemistry (Becker, Noyes, & Cooper, ; Becker, Rupp, & Brandriet, ; Brandriet, Rupp, Lazenby, & Becker, ; Claesgens, Scalise, Wilson, & Stacy, ; Loertscher, Lewis, Mercer, & Minderhout, ; Sevian & Talanquer, ). We thus expect that the set of proposed construct maps will be useful for informing assessment of epistemic knowledge of modeling for both traditional and modeling‐focused curricula.…”
Section: Research Questionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A construct map is defined by Wilson (, p. 3) as:Researchers have developed and used construct maps as assessment tools in a variety of studies (e.g., Arya & Maul, ; Becker et al, , ; Brandriet et al, ; Briggs, Alonzo, Schwab, & Wilson, ; N. J. Brown, Furtak, Timms, Nagashima, & Wilson, ; Claesgens et al, ; Loertscher et al, ; Rivet & Kastens, ; Schwarz et al, ; Sevian & Talanquer, ).…”
Developing and using scientific models is an important scientific practice for science students. Undergraduate chemistry curricula are often centered on established disciplinary models, and assessments typically provide students with opportunities to use these models to predict and explain chemical phenomena. However, traditional curricula generally provide few opportunities for students to consider the epistemic nature of models and the process of modeling. To gain a sense of how introductory chemistry students understand model changeability, model multiplicity, the evaluation of models, and the process of modeling, we use a construct‐mapping approach to characterize the sophistication of students' epistemic knowledge of models and modeling. We present a set of four related construct maps that we developed based on the work of other scholars and empirically validated in an undergraduate introductory chemistry setting. We use the construct maps to identify themes in students' responses to an open‐ended survey instrument, the models in chemistry survey, and discuss the implications for teaching.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.