How do primary school children progress in understanding the composition of matter?

Research Reviews
Author: Maria Tsapali
Date:

References

  1. Barlett FC (1932) Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Braun V and Clarke V (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.
  3. Fensham PP (1994) Progression in school science curriculum: A rational prospect or a chimera? Research in Science Education 24(1): 76–82.
  4. Hadenfeldt JC, Liu X and Neumann K (2014) Framing students’ progression in understanding matter: a review of previous research. Studies in Science Education 50(2): 181–208.
  5. Harrison AG and Treagust DF (2002) The Particulate Nature of Matter: Challenges in Understanding the Submicroscopic World. In Gilbert JK, Jong OD, Justi R, Treagust DF and Driel JHV (eds.) Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice Netherlands: Springer, pp. 189–212.
  6. Krnel D, Watson R and Glažar SA (2005) The development of the concept of “matter”: A cross‐age study of how children describe materials. International Journal of Science Education 27(3): 367–383.
  7. Krnel D, Watson R and Glažar SA (1998) Survey of research related to the development of the concept of 'matter’. International Journal of Science Education 20(3): 257–289.
  8. Liu X and Lesniak KM (2005) Students’ progression of understanding the matter concept from elementary to high school. Science Education 89(3): 433–450.
  9. Nakhleh MB and Samarapungavan A (1999) Elementary school children’s beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(7): 777–805. Nickerson RS (1985) Understanding Understanding. American Journal of Education 93: 201–239.
  10. Novak JD and Musonda D (1991) A Twelve-Year Longitudinal Study of Science Concept Learning. American Educational Research Journal 28(1): 117–153.
  11. Papageorgiou G and Johnson P (2005. Do Particle Ideas Help or Hinder Pupils’ Understanding of Phenomena? International Journal of Science Education 27(11): 1299–1317.
  12. Quinn C, Ellefson MR and Taber KS (2013) Using property induction to evaluate understanding of dissolving. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz N. and Wachsmuth, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society Austin: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1181-1186.
  13. Smith EL (1991) A conceptual change model of learning science. In Glynn, SM Yeany RH andBritton BK (eds.) The Psychology of Learning Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 43–63
  14. Stavy R and Stachel D (1985) Children’s ideas about 'solid' and 'liquid.' European Journal of Science Education 7(4): 407–421.
  15. Taber KS (2013) Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing Representations of Concepts, Conceptual Structure and Conceptual Change to Inform Teaching and Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  16. Talanquer V (2009) On Cognitive Constraints and Learning Progressions: The case of “structure of matter.” International Journal of Science Education 31(15): 2123–2136.
  17. Tsapali M, Quinn C, Ellefson MR, Schlottmann A andTaber KS (2018) Progress in primary school children’s understandings of materials and their composition: A cross-age qualitative study. In: Finlayson O, McLoughlin E, Erduran S and Childs P (eds) Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference. Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education. Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University, pp. 2167–2180.