1994
DOI: 10.1080/0950069940160204
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Students’ conceptions of 1 mol and educators’ conceptions of how they teach ‘the mole’

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
26
0
3

Year Published

2001
2001
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
2
26
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Some attribute transformations of curriculum intentions to "inadequate" disciplinary knowledge (Cochran & Jones, 1998). But these are understood variously as a matter of organization (Tamir, 1992); of lack of coherence (Pro, 1998); of weak understanding of specific contents (Shulman, 1987;Tüllberg, Strömdahl, & Lybeck, 1994;Parker & Heywood, 2000); of rigidity of content knowledge (Moje, 1995); and of commonsense understanding of scientific concepts (Vicentini, 1999;Furio, Azcona, & Guisasola, 1999;De Manuel & Jimenez, 2000). Others focus on "inadequate" belief systems about the nature of the disciplinary knowledge, for example, on teachers' epistemology of science and the ontology they hold for scientific entities (Gutierrez & Pintó, 2001a;Zuzovsky, 1994;Lederman, 1992;Pomeroy, 1993;Désautels & Larochelle, 1998).…”
Section: Transformations Of Curriculum Innovationsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Some attribute transformations of curriculum intentions to "inadequate" disciplinary knowledge (Cochran & Jones, 1998). But these are understood variously as a matter of organization (Tamir, 1992); of lack of coherence (Pro, 1998); of weak understanding of specific contents (Shulman, 1987;Tüllberg, Strömdahl, & Lybeck, 1994;Parker & Heywood, 2000); of rigidity of content knowledge (Moje, 1995); and of commonsense understanding of scientific concepts (Vicentini, 1999;Furio, Azcona, & Guisasola, 1999;De Manuel & Jimenez, 2000). Others focus on "inadequate" belief systems about the nature of the disciplinary knowledge, for example, on teachers' epistemology of science and the ontology they hold for scientific entities (Gutierrez & Pintó, 2001a;Zuzovsky, 1994;Lederman, 1992;Pomeroy, 1993;Désautels & Larochelle, 1998).…”
Section: Transformations Of Curriculum Innovationsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The classroom contexts of the research with students and teachers span the globe. Studies from Lybeck's lab in Sweden of 30 upper secondary school students and 28 teachers of chemistry indicate that few students and only about three out of 28 teachers use the correct SI definition of the mole [67,68,78]. The majority of students and teachers use the notion that one mole equals 'Avogadro number' of entities, like one dozen equals the number 12.…”
Section: Educational Papers Concerned About the Molementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Evidence from peer-reviewed research on teacher and student understanding of the mole concept strongly suggests that the current definition is not well understood nor is it well communicated in textbooks [62,[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]. The classroom contexts of the research with students and teachers span the globe.…”
Section: Educational Papers Concerned About the Molementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A review of the literature has confirmed that teaching and learning about the mole is indeed problematic. Previous studies have looked into the issue of teaching and learning about the mole from various perspectives, such as textbook analysis (De Berg, ; Giunta, ; Padilla & Furió, ; Staver & Lumpe, ), teachers' and students' conceptions (Cervellati, Montuschi, Perugini, Grimellini‐Tomasini, & Balandi, ; Staver & Lumpe, ; Tullberg, Strömdahl, & Lybeck, ) and educators' plans and strategies for teaching the concept (Furió, Azcona, Guisasola, & Ratcliffe, ; Strömdahl, Tullberg, & Lybeck, ). The research findings showed that teachers and students held various understandings of the mole that differed from the formal definition accepted in the scientific community (Fang, Hart, & Clarke, , ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The research findings showed that teachers and students held various understandings of the mole that differed from the formal definition accepted in the scientific community (Fang, Hart, & Clarke, , ). Instead of a SI unit, teachers and students perceived the mole as a mass, a volume, and/or a number (Avogadro's number) of elementary entities (Padilla, Ponce‐de‐Leon, Rembado, & Garritz, ; Staver & Lumpe, ; Tullberg et al, ). Moreover, the studies indicated that the concept of amount of substance was virtually disregarded (De Bièvre, ; Strömdahl, ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%