Students' progression of understanding the matter concept from elementary to high school

Abstract

Using the US national sample from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Rasch modeling method, this study identified the conceptual progression sequence of various matter concept aspects, and compared students' latent abilities against the sequence. We found that the four matter aspects, i.e. conservation, physical properties and change, chemical properties and change, and structure and composition, are interrelated. Although they differ in overall difficulty with an increased difficulty from conservation to physical properties and change to chemical properties and change and to structure and composition, the difference among them is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Elementary school students (3rd and 4th grades) have an average latent ability below the average difficulty of items on the conservation aspect; 7th graders' average latent ability is above the average difficulty level of the conservation and physical properties and change aspects; 8th and 12th grade students' average latent ability is above the average difficulty level of all the aspects except for structure and composition; and 12th grade science specialization students' average latent ability is above the average difficulty level of all the four aspects. We proposed a dynamic overlapping wave model of matter concept development to make sense the above-identified progression patterns.

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

“…Reanalysing the US TIMSS sample, Liu and Lesniak (2005) investigated students' progression in understanding concepts of the following principal aspects of matter, which can be considered an extension of Andersson's (1990) categories, in order to better represent the extensive research on students' conceptions of matter (Liu & Lesniak, 2005, p. 436): structure and composition, physical properties and change, chemical properties and change and conservation. The authors showed that students' understanding of matter develops from an understanding of physical properties and conservation, to understanding chemical properties, and finally advances to an understanding of the structure and composition of matter.…”

“…And although Andersson's (1990) review was followed by a considerable amount of research (e.g. Ahtee & Varjola, 1998;Bar & Galili, 1994;Benson, Wittrock, & Baur, 1993;Boujaoude, 1991;Gabel, 1993;Nakhleh & Samarapungavan, 1999;Stavy, 1991;Watson & Dillon, 1996), Liu and Lesniak (2005) in their review of the literature conclude that still little is known about how students develop understanding of the four aspects of matter and how to foster students' progression in understanding matter as a core idea (Liu & Lesniak, 2005).…”

A Longitudinal Study Showing how Students use a Molecule Concept when Explaining Everyday Situations

“…There are also studies focused on the development of students' understanding of these concepts (e.g. Johnson, 1998c;Krnel et al, 1998;Liu & Lesniak, 2005). All these studies to a greater or lesser extent investigate the width, depth, or "correctness" of the students' understanding of abstract scientific concepts concerning matter and its transformations more so than investigate students' ability to use these concepts in an everyday context and/or if this use benefits the students' understanding of the phenomena concerned.…”

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

“…A host of research studies investigating sighted students' conceptions of matter has been published recently (Gomez, Benarocch, & Marin, 2006;Eilam, 2004;Liu & Lesniak, 2005;Nakleh, Samarapungavan, & Saglam, 2005;Pozo & Gomez Crespo, 2005;Singer, Wu, & Tal, 2003;Stains & Talanquer, 2007), but the congenitally blind children and youth have been excluded from these studies. In particular, formal operational or abstract reasoning of the congenitally blind was identified by Warren (1994) as a neglected cognitive research area.…”