{"title":"Framing students’ progression in understanding matter: a review of previous research","authors":"Jan Christoph Hadenfeldt, Xiufeng Liu, K. Neumann","doi":"10.1080/03057267.2014.945829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This manuscript presents a systematic review of the research on how students conceptualise matter. Understanding the structure and properties of matter is an essential part of science literacy. Over the last decades the number of studies on students’ conceptions of matter published in peer-reviewed journals has increased significantly. These studies investigated how students conceptualise matter, to what extent students are able to explain everyday phenomena or how students develop an understanding of matter over time. In order to understand how students progress in their understanding of matter, what they understand easily and where they have difficulties, there is a need to identify common patterns across the available studies. The first substantial review of research on students’ conception was provided in the 1990s with the aim to organise students’ understanding of matter into four categories: students’ conceptions about (1) chemical reactions, (2) physical states and their changes, (3) atoms, molecules and particle systems and (4) conservation. The aim of this review and analysis is to identify how subsequent research on students’ conceptions of matter adds to this framework. The last comprehensive review of research on students’ understanding of matter was carried out in the early 2000s. Thus, we analysed studies on students’ conceptions of matter published within the last decade in five peer-reviewed journals of science education. Our findings suggest that research has moved from categorising students’ conceptions to analysing students’ progression in understanding matter. Based on our findings, we also identified typical pathways by which students may develop over time related to the four categories identified in previous reviews. As a conclusion, we present a model describing students’ progression in understanding matter which may contribute to the development of a K-12 learning progression of matter.","PeriodicalId":49262,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03057267.2014.945829","citationCount":"41","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.945829","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 41
Abstract
This manuscript presents a systematic review of the research on how students conceptualise matter. Understanding the structure and properties of matter is an essential part of science literacy. Over the last decades the number of studies on students’ conceptions of matter published in peer-reviewed journals has increased significantly. These studies investigated how students conceptualise matter, to what extent students are able to explain everyday phenomena or how students develop an understanding of matter over time. In order to understand how students progress in their understanding of matter, what they understand easily and where they have difficulties, there is a need to identify common patterns across the available studies. The first substantial review of research on students’ conception was provided in the 1990s with the aim to organise students’ understanding of matter into four categories: students’ conceptions about (1) chemical reactions, (2) physical states and their changes, (3) atoms, molecules and particle systems and (4) conservation. The aim of this review and analysis is to identify how subsequent research on students’ conceptions of matter adds to this framework. The last comprehensive review of research on students’ understanding of matter was carried out in the early 2000s. Thus, we analysed studies on students’ conceptions of matter published within the last decade in five peer-reviewed journals of science education. Our findings suggest that research has moved from categorising students’ conceptions to analysing students’ progression in understanding matter. Based on our findings, we also identified typical pathways by which students may develop over time related to the four categories identified in previous reviews. As a conclusion, we present a model describing students’ progression in understanding matter which may contribute to the development of a K-12 learning progression of matter.
期刊介绍:
The central aim of Studies in Science Education is to publish review articles of the highest quality which provide analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education. In addressing this aim, the Editor and Editorial Advisory Board, are guided by a commitment to:
maintaining and developing the highest standards of scholarship associated with the journal;
publishing articles from as wide a range of authors as possible, in relation both to professional background and country of origin;
publishing articles which serve both to consolidate and reflect upon existing fields of study and to promote new areas for research activity.
Studies in Science Education will be of interest to all those involved in science education including: science education researchers, doctoral and masters students; science teachers at elementary, high school and university levels; science education policy makers; science education curriculum developers and text book writers.
Articles featured in Studies in Science Education have been made available either following invitation from the Editor or through potential contributors offering pieces. Given the substantial nature of the review articles, the Editor is willing to give informal feedback on the suitability of proposals though all contributions, whether invited or not, are subject to full peer review. A limited number of books of special interest and concern to those involved in science education are normally reviewed in each volume.