Adadan, E., Trundle, K. C., & Irving, K. E. (2010). Exploring grade 11 students’ conceptual pathways of the particulate nature of matter in the context of multi-representational instruction.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 1004-1035.
Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., & Baur, M. E. (1993). Students’ preconceptions of the Nature of Gases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(6), 587-597.
Boulter, C. J., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 41-57).
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Buckley, B. C., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building mental models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 119-135). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The process and challenges of conceptual change. In M.
Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp.
3-27). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Chiu, M.-H., & Chung, S.-L. (2007, August). Investigating correctness, consistency, and completeness of students’ mental models and paths of conceptual change in learning the nature of gas particles via multiple modeling activities. Paper presented at 2007 ESERA Conference, Malmö, Sweden.
Chiu, M.-H., & Chung, S.-L. (2009, September). Investigating students’ ontological change in their
98 理想氣體心智模式改變 鍾曉蘭、邱美虹
mental models of gas particles. Paper presented at the 2009 ESERA Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.
Chiu, M.-H., Guo, C.-J., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Assessing students’ conceptual understanding in science: An introduction about a national project in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 379-390.
de Berg, K. C. (1995). Student understanding of volume mass, and pressure of air within a sealed syringe in different stage of compression. Journal Research in Science Teaching, 32(8), 871-884.
de Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science education and in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 657-664.
diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
diSessa, A. A., Gillespiea, N. M., & Esterlyb, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843-900.
Duit, R., Treagust, D., & Mansfield, H. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. Treagust, R. Duit, & B.
Fraset (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 17-31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Freksa, C., & Barkowsky, T. (1999). On the duality and on the integration of propositional and spatial representations. In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (Eds.), Mental models in discourse processing and reasoning (pp. 195-212). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science B. V.
Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. (1998). Learning science through models and modeling. In B. Fraser &
K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 53-66). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (2000). Explanations with models in science education.
In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 193-208).
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students’ understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LO.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary Students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509-534.
Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children’s understanding of a ‘basic’ particle theory: A
鍾曉蘭、邱美虹 理想氣體心智模式改變 99
longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 393-412.
Johnson, P., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introductory of particle theory: A substance-based framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 130-150.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Formal rules versus mental models in reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 586-624). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705.
Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Chemical education research: Where from here? University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 34-38.
Liang, J.-C., Chou, C.-C., & Chiu, M.-H. (2011). Student test performances on behavior of gas particles and mismatch of teacher predictions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, 238-250.
Margel, H., Eylon, B. S., & Scherzo, Z. (2008). A longitudinal study of junior high school students’
conceptions of the structure of materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 132-152.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Millar, R. (1990). Making sense: What use are particle ideas to children? In P. Licht, P. L. Lijnse, W.
de Voss, & A. J. Waarlo (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles: A central problem in secondary science education (pp. 283-299). Utrecht, the Netherlands: CD-β Press.
Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils’ understanding of the particles nature of matter: A cross-age study. Science Education, 65(2), 187-196.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357- 368.
Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naïve physics. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 61-76). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535-585.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science,
100 理想氣體心智模式改變 鍾曉蘭、邱美虹
18(1), 123-183.
Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., & Ikospentaki K. (2004). Modes of knowing and ways of reasoning in elementary astronomy. Cognitive Development, 19, 203-222.
Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3-34). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
鍾曉蘭、邱美虹 理想氣體心智模式改變 101
Journal of Research in Education Sciences 2012, 57(4), 73-101
The Evolution of the 11th Graders’ Mental Models of Ideal Gas
Shiao-Lan Chung Mei-Hung Chiu
New Taipei Municipal New Taipei Senior High School
Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University
Abstract
Students often face tremendous challenges when learning ideal gas concepts. This is probably because it is difficult for students to experience the microscopic concepts in ideal gas models in their daily observations, and several misconceptions or alternative concepts occur as a result. Thirty-nine Grade 11 students participated in this study. Students were exposed to eight 50-min teaching periods, 14 students (8 males and 6 females) were interviewed, and their verbal and drawing data were collected. This study analyzed concepts related to ideal gas (particle view, gas volume definition, pressure effect, factors affecting pressure, rigid particles, and the distribution and motion of gas particles) in 14 students by using verbal and graphic data retrieved from 3 interviews (before, during, and after instruction). We also analyzed types of ideal gas mental models that the students use, and the evolutionary processes they follow. The results indicate that dynamic particle model concrete teaching aids, ideal gas model slides, and a computer animation and simulation program changed the 14 student conceptions of gas particle views, rigid particles, and the distribution and motion of gas particles. However, 2 incorrect conceptions—causes of gas pressure and factors of gas pressure—hardly changed and even regressed to their pre-instruction conceptions. The evolution of mental models shows that only one student used the scientific model before instruction. After 4 periods of multi-representational modeling teaching activities, 11 students changed their conceptions from incorrect ideal gas models to scientific models (12 students or 85.7%). Of the 11 students, 2 students reverted to the weight model, 1 student used the attractive force model, and 8 students still held the scientific model after 8 teaching periods.
Keywords: mental models, multi-representational modeling teaching, gas particle models
Corresponding Author: Mei-Hung Chiu, E-mail: [email protected]
102 理想氣體心智模式改變 鍾曉蘭、邱美虹