Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686 DOI 10.1007/s11165-011-9223-8
Junior High School Students’ Ideas about the Shape and Size of the Atom Aytekin Cokelez
Published online: 16 April 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract The concept of the atom is one of the building blocks of science education. Although the concept is a foundation for students’ subsequent learning experiences, it is difficult for students to comprehend because of common misconceptions and its abstractness. The purpose of this study is to examine junior high school students’ (ages 12–13) ideas about the shape and size of the atom and the evolution of these ideas over 2 years. The study’s sample size was 126 students, including 76 sixth-grade and 50 seventhgrade students. The educational curriculum and relevant literature guided the development of a questionnaire that consisted of three open-ended questions intended to determine students’ knowledge of the structure and physical properties of the atom. After administering the questionnaire, collected data were analysed qualitatively. The study shows that students had difficulty developing a mental image of the atom, and contrary to the conclusions of other studies, students demonstrated a preference for working with complex and abstract models. Keywords Science education . Atom . Model . Modelling
Introduction Educators agree that the use of models in science education supports meaningful teaching and learning processes. Because the notion that students form “mental constructions” is widely accepted, educational environments conducive to the constructivist approach to teaching have incorporated use of models in new science and technology curricula. During the learning process, common concepts are the vehicles for conveying the same information to students with different attributes. Modelling is quite significant for conveying common concepts to students (Cokelez, 2009; Unlu, 2010). Using models is inevitable in science
A. Cokelez (*) Science Education Program, Faculty of Education, Ondokuz Mayis University, 55200 Kurupelit, Samsun, Turkey e-mail:
[email protected]
674
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
education, which deals with abstract concepts (Treagust et al. 2002). However, the concept of a model is difficult for students to grasp (Gilbert, 1997; Grosslight et al. 1991). To dispel some confusion, differentiating between scientific models and mental models is necessary. Scientific models, as defined by Paton (1996), constitute scientific and mental activities that facilitate a person’s understanding of phenomena that seem complex. Various researchers have suggested a variety of definitions for “model.” According to Host (1989), a model is an actual tool of representation, but Drouin (1988) describes a model as something used to represent something else. According to Bissuel (2001), a model is a tool of communication. The literature describes three main functions of models. Martinand (1990) stated that models represent an event or system that needs to be explained. Due to a particular characteristic or change in a characteristic of an event, Genzling and Pierrard (1994) asserted that a model is explanatory only when creating a connection between different definers of a system that requires explanation. According to Drouin and Astolfi (1992), a model provides an opportunity to speculate about different stages of a developing process or a system’s transformation, without having to consider the current state. Different formalisms, such as mathematical models, images, diagrams, symbols, formulas, may represent models’ typology. According to Walliser (1977), models’ expressions occur in a more or less abstract formalised language. He distinguishes the following in particular: – – –
Literary languages formed from literary symbols assembled in a structure of concatenation, such as spoken languages or specialised languages Iconic languages formed from graphic symbols from the varied structures The logico-mathematical languages made of abstract symbols (logical symbols, meaning symbols obeying various structures).
Physical models translate systems or the objects of science into forms of concrete homothetic phenomena (or of objects) (Walliser, 1977; Robardet and Guillaud, 1994). These models include various types of molecular or crystal models in compact or fragmented forms. Analogical models constitute a simplifying diagram that intuition or thought can easily encircle; these models are substitutes for the great complexity of nature (Robardet and Guillaud, 1994). According to Bachelard (1979), the concept of analogy and the concept of model must be distinguished one from another. Analogy supports modelling and is the basic conceptual foundation for creating models. Symbolic models translate systems into more or less abstract language. The systems are coherent and structured of notions connected between them by a unit of rules of organisation. Symbolic models translate concepts through literal relations or laws or as particular curves, diagrams, geometrical constructions, or numerical equations (Walliser, 1977; Robardet and Guillaud, 1994). According to Gilbert et al. (2000), a theoretical model occupies a scientifically vital intermediate position between an object model, which is an idealised empirical object, and a generic theory, which is entirely the product of imagination. Theoretically, modelling includes a representation of the properties and behaviour of the object being modelled and entity from which it is built. However, mental models are defined differently in the literature. Barquero (1995) stated that mental models represent uncertain scientific knowledge or knowledge that is the construct of incomplete, internalised and inconsistent information. According to Greca and Moreira (2000), mental models are an internalised representation of the structural similarities of phenomena or processes. According to de Kleer and Brown (1983), two important processes form mental models: envisioning the system in the form of images and
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
675
(2) analysing the system and creating a model based on the general scientific principles that govern the status of the system components and their configuration in relation to each other. Review of the Literature Students’ key misconception regarding atoms and molecules have been identified in the scientific literature. First, a significant amount of research shows that students have difficulty differentiating between an atom and a molecule (Ben-Zvi et al. 1988; de Vos and Verdonk, 1996; del Pozo, 2001; Griffiths and Preston, 1992). Students consider atoms and molecules, interchangeably, as the smallest units of any given matter (Ben-Zvi et al. 1988; de Vos and Verdonk, 1996; Taber, 1998). According to this conception, an atom is a particle that constitutes matter, and this conception persists after instructing students at the lower secondary level (Brehelin et al. 1994). An atom is often qualified as round, solid, and hard (Harrison and Treagust, 1996; Griffiths and Preston, 1992) and defined as a “ball” or “sphere” (Harrison and Treagust, 1996). Regarding the size of atoms, a frequent misconception is that they are macroscopic (Griffiths and Preston, 1992; Brehelin et al. 1994). In other words, students understand that an atom is too small to be seen with the unaided eye, but they mistakenly believe it can be seen with a very powerful microscope (Charlet-Brehelin, 1998; Harrison and Treagust, 1996; Lee et al. 1993). Last, some students have a misconception of the mass of one atom (35.5% of students estimate an atom’s mass at 1 g) or believe that all atoms have the same weight (Griffiths and Preston, 1992). Students further believe that atoms are generally grouped (Harrison and Treagust, 1996) and that molecules are considered to be groups of atoms rather than basic chemical entities (Taber, 1998; Brehelin et al. 1994). For instance, a student might believe that a water molecule can contain atoms other than hydrogen and oxygen (Griffiths and Preston, 1992). Even more to the point, some students believe that substances can consist of substances other than atoms (e.g., dust particles or microbes) (Harrison and Treagust, 1996). Students draw representations of combinations of atoms that form molecules with joined circles or spheres that represent the atoms (Griffiths and Preston, 1992). Charlet-Brehelin (1998) demonstrated that only slightly more than one-third of students who followed a classical course of study and completed lower secondary school (beginning of grade 10) integrated the minimum formulation level required at the end of grade 9. Students at this level are expected to understand that an atom consists of one nucleus and multiple electrons (electron cloud). Harrison and Treagust (1996) identified an identical observation of students. Students generally schematise four categories of models: an atom as a sphere, an atom as a solar system, an atom as neutral (+ charges of the nucleus equal to - charges of the electrons), and an atom as an electronic cloud. By the end of a classical course of studies, the first two models are the ones adopted by most students (41% and 48%, respectively) (Charlet-Brehelin, 1998). According to Harrison and Treagust (1996), many students represent an atom as a “simple circle” within a large circle. Students have difficulty appreciating the relative size of an atom and its nucleus; the students who think that electrons are far from the nucleus believe that the atom is hard at the centre and softer towards the outside and that it can recover its initial form after being compressed (Harrison and Treagust, 1996). With regard to ionic compounds, students conceive of an ion as a distorted atom rather than an entity that constitutes matter (Taber, 1998). Many students consider electron shells to be envelopes that wrap and protect an atom (Harrison and Treagust, 1996). Many also believe that electrons move on the electron
676
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
shell’s surface (Harrison and Treagust, 2000). Keig and Rubba (1993) further revealed that 45% of students believe that electrons are pre-assembled in electron pairs within the atom. Even at the university level, students have difficulty understanding the electron structure of atoms (Keig and Rubba, 1993). Specific misconceptions include the misrepresentation of shells and sub-shells as well as misunderstandings of electron orbits and the number of electrons. Moreover, these students have difficulty transitioning, by formula and molecular model, between the electronic representation of atoms and the representation of the molecules that atoms form. The quantum model of atoms gives rise to the representation of electron clouds. However, students have difficulty understanding this representation even after completing grade 9 (Charlet-Brehelin, 1998). Harrison and Treagust (1996 and 2000) showed that many students believe the electron cloud protects the nucleus. Even very capable students often mistake electron clouds for electronic shells.
Curriculum Context The new science curriculum in Turkey, which is based on the constructivist approach, has been established to motivate students to inquire about and discuss happenings in their surronding environment, including family, school and society. This curriculum supports students’ active construction of knowledge through problem solving, exploration, reflection and communication and other thought-provoking processes that require high level cognitive demand. The concept of the atom is a focal point in science education because it forms the basis for teaching other concepts. As a concept, the atom appears in the primary school science curriculum in the subject Matter and Transformation. Beginning in the first year of the primary school program and continuing for the succeeding two grades, the life sciences course introduces students to various forms of matter, objects, materials, and substances. It further guides them through exercises on concept pairs, such as big-small, coloreduncolored, hot-cold, and odorous-odorless. In the fourth grade, under the topic of Let’s Get to Know Matter, students are taught to understand the concepts of solid–liquid-gas, mattermass-materials-objects, natural substances-processed, and substances-artificial substances based on the previously mentioned qualities. In addition, introduction of new qualifying properties develops students’ abilities to identify substances, and exercises allow students to measure and describe the magnitudes of mass and volume. In the 5th grade, the unit on Transformation of Matter and Recognizing Matter presents themes related to the concept of heat, including introducing heat as a type of energy, relating heat to the natural cycle of water, and discussing solar energy as the source that feeds this cycle. The unit then treats the effects of heat on matter, teaching the topics of expanding-contracting and changes of state. The unit further reviews differentiating properties of matter, including meltingfreezing points, boiling point, and density, while introducing recognition of different substances. In the second level of primary school, 6th graders study the unit entitled The Particulate Structure of Matter. In this unit they compare the properties of compression and expansion, learn that matter consists of tiny moving particles that cannot be seen, understand that these particles have spaces between them, relate these concepts to those of atoms and molecules and define the concepts of elements and compounds. To learn the building blocks of matter and atoms, students must first understand that the building blocks of matter that look like globes are called atoms and that atoms themselves consist of even smaller particles.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
677
In 7th grade, the unit The Structure and Properties of Matter introduces students to element symbols, teaches that compounds can be more scientifically described by using symbols, calls attention to how matter carries positive and negative charges and establishes the perception of the concepts of protons, neutrons and electrons. Also in this unit, students study the interaction of electrons, the chemical bonds that form when atoms share electrons and the principle of dissolving in terms of interaction between solute and solvent. By the time students reach the 8th-grade unit entitled The Structure and Properties of Matter, they have learned in 6th and 7th grades about the concepts of atoms, molecules, ions, elements and compounds. They have further realised that symbols identify elements and formulae identify compounds, and they have become aware of chemical bonds, classified elements, and the periodic table. In summary, the concepts taught with regard to the structure of the atom include – – – –
Demonstration of the atom’s nucleus, its primary molecules, and electrons on a representative diagram. Demonstration that electrons may be at different distances from the nucleus in the same atom Demonstration of layers of electrons on a drawn model of an atom, which includes counting the numbers of electrons in each layer from inside to outside. Historical development of models of the atom, with student realisation that the electron cloud model is the most realistic of all models.
The purpose of this study is to analyse junior high school students’ (grades 6–7) ideas about the shape and size of the atom. In this context, the research questions for the study are – –
How do students schematise the atom and how does this change over time? Which models of the atom do they prefer in their diagrams of atoms, and how do these change over time?
Research Methodology In this study, school science curricula and textbooks have been examined to identify the intended development of the conceptualisation of the atom as a result of the prescribed educational program. A questionnaire consisting of three open-ended questions aimed to discover students’ knowledge of the concept of the atom. The questionnaire was developed through consultation with two experienced science teachers, examination of the science and technology curriculum and guidance provided by relevant educational literature. For the validity of the instrument of data collection, three experts were consulted. Each indicated that the questionnaire was appropriate for data collection. To ensure reliability in the analysis of the students’ responses, the three experts were asked to categorise student responses. Comparison of categories showed that there is consistency among the experts’ categorisations. The first question aimed to explore students’ mental models and their ideas about the shape of atoms. Question 2 asked students about their ideas regarding the size of atoms. Question 3 explored how students could compare the size of the atom to something with which they were familiar.
678
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
Qualitative data from a survey of students is preferred because it provides more information than a multiple-choice instrument (White and Gunstone, 1992). The collection of data occurred after a pilot study designed to reveal ambiguities, poorly worded questions, or questions that were not understood by the students. The pilot study was conducted at two schools in the province of Samsun, Turkey. The research sample consisted of 126 6th (n: 76) and 7th grade (n: 50) students. Because the same teachers at both schools use the same teaching methods, the choice of these two consecutive grades is appropriate to show the change in the students’ conception of the atom over time. The data analysis was conducted by first categorising and grouping students’ responses into sub-categories according to common characteristics of expression and main ideas, recording frequencies and rates of each. Comparisons were made between common categories of the students’ responses. In this research, while analysing students’ answers to the first question, seven categories were used to differentiate student answers. Six categories of atom models (see Fig. 1) already identified by Cokelez and Dumon (2005) were used, along with one additional category of the “particle model,” added by the researcher. Second, data obtained from the main and sub-themes were supported by direct quotations from student responses. These direct quotations, appearing in italics, strikingly reflect the ideas and experiences of survey participants (Yildirim and Simsek, 2005). The third and final stage involved explicating findings, drawing connections, and interpreting the results. Because one student could offer several characteristics in their responses, the total count of characteristics identified in the tables (see Appendix B, Table 2) exceed the number of participating students. Consequently, in the tables, each response corresponds to a different item.
Solar system model
Confusion Atom - molecule
Composition atom model
Ball model
Electron cloud model
Fig. 1 Categories of atom models identified by Cokelez and Dumon (2005)
Group of atoms
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
679
Graph 1 Student responses to the question of the appearance of an atom under a microscope
Findings Shape of the Atom Graph 1 and Table 1 (see Appendix B) show the percentages of the students’ responses to the question, “If you could examine an atom with all its details under a powerful microscope, what would you see? Show what you would see with a diagram.” The graph reveals that 27.6% of the 6th grade students and 20% of the 7th grade students did not answer this question. Although the percentage was lower in the 7th grade, the fact that one-fifth of the class failed to answer the question indicates that these students have none of the mental models and no ideas about the shape of atoms. It is not suprising that 7th grade students cannot easily integrate these models, as they are only beginning to be confronted with abstract concepts. The findings point to a significant rise from the 6th to the 7th grade in the percentage of students who drew a diagram of the composition model of the atom (10.5% in grade 6, 30% in grade 7). Figure 2 shows some of the diagrams of this model drawn by the students. The percentage of students using the solar system model in their diagrams also exhibited a rise (10.5% in grade 6, 28% in grade 7). Although a large percentage of the students indicated that electrons orbit around protons and neutrons, some thought that electrons were at the nucleus, describing the atom as “matter with electrons, neutrons and other objects orbiting around it.” The examples of students’ diagrams of this model appear in Fig. 3. The data show a significant drop in the percentage of students who thought of the atom as consisting of particles and molecules (21.1% in grade 6, 8% in grade 7). Some students Fig. 2 Examples of diagrams of the Composition Model of the Atom: (a) Drawing by a 6th grade student (b), (c) Examples of drawings by 7th grade students
(a)
(b)
(c)
680
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 3 Examples of diagrams based on the Solar System Model: (a), (b) 6th grade student diagrams; (c), (d) 7th grade student diagrams
described the atom as “Round particles connected to each other or single, round particles.” Figure 4 shows the examples of the diagrams drawn by the students in this context. The 6th grade cirriculum includes a unit entitled “The Molecular Structure of Matter,” which teaches students that substances consist of “small, invisible particles in motion” (MEB 2005a; p.118). The 7th grade unit entitled “The Structure and Properties of Matter” teaches that “atoms consist of protons, neutrons and a nucleus” (MEB 2005b; p. 229). Accordingly, although the drop in the percentage of students who think matter consists of particles and molecules can be seen as a positive result, the fact that 8% of 7th graders maintain this misconception suggests that the effectiveness of the educational program must be questioned. The data show a decrease in the percentage of students using the ball model in their diagrams from one grade to the next (7.9% in grade 6, 2% in grade 7). Researchers have previously reported that students define the atom as round (Griffiths and Preston, 1992; Harrison and Treagust, 1996; Taber, 1998), and in another study of middle school students (Cokelez and Dumon, 2005), the ratio climbed to one-third of the total number of students. Consequently, percentages established in the current study are low by comparision and may represent a desired level. Examples of the students’ diagrams of the ball model appear in Fig. 5. The current study shows that some 7th grade students (8%) used the electron cloud model. Some of the students’ diagrams appear in Fig. 6. Because the cloud model is not a part of the 6th or 7th grade curricula, arguably students derived this information from experiences outside school. Harrison and Treagust (1996, 2000) underscored the fact that this model is not easy for students to comprehend.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 4 Examples of drawings of the Particle Model: (a), (b), (c) 6th grade student diagrams; (d) 7th grade student diagrams
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
681
Fig. 5 Diagram examples of students’ Ball Model: (a), (b) 6th grade diagrams
(a)
(b)
The data point to an increase in the percentage of students who confuse the concepts of atoms and molecules (2.6% in grade 6, 4% in grade 7) and that some students have misconceptions such as “atoms are made up of cells.” Some 6th grade students (6.6%) define atoms as atom groups. Some of the students’ diagrams appear in Fig. 7. Size of the Atom Graph 2 and Table 2 (see Appendix B) show the percentages of the students’ responses to the instruction “Compare the size of an atom with something you know.” The graph shows that 25% of the 6th grade students and 30% of the 7th grade students did not respond to this instruction. Approximately one-third of the students in both classes expressed the size of the atom as “very small.” However, the findings indicate a drop in the percentage of students who described an atom as “too small to see” (15.8% in grade 6, 8% in grade 7), as well as a decrease in the percentage of students who defined an atom as “too small even to see by microscope” (14.5% in grade 6, 4% in grade 7). These student thoughts are consistent with the literature (Griffiths and Preston, 1992; Brehelin et al. 1994). The comparative section of the graph shows that the greatest increase in percentage of student responses from grade 6 to grade 7 was in the description of the atom as “the point of a needle, the head of a pin or a dot” (1.3% in grade 6, 18% in grade 7). One 6th grade student responded that “It’s very, very tiny. For example, if the atoms in a drop of water grew as big
(a)
(c)
(b)
( d)
Fig. 6 Diagram examples of the Electron Cloud Model: (a), (b), 6th grade student diagrams; (c) (d) 7th grade student diagrams
682
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 7 Diagram examples of the Group of Atoms Model: (a), (b), (c) 6th grade student diagrams
as a pin, they would be as big as the Sea of Marmara.” Another 7th grade student explained that “There are billions of atoms even in the head of a pin.” Data show an increase in percentages of students who likened the atom to a “marble” (2.6% in grade 6, 8% in grade 7). Two 7th grade students said, “…if we think that the nucleus is as big as a marble, an atom would be about as big as a stadium.” An increase in comparisons with “chalk, erasure dust or dust” were next most frequent (2.6% in grade 6, 6% in grade 7). Furthermore, some 6th grade students likened an atom to a cell (13.2%), sand (2.6%), or a molecule (2.6%). Some comments of the 6th grade students who compared an atom with a cell were –
– –
“An atom is too small to be seen with the naked eye, even with a microscope. It’s smaller than what can be fully seen even under the finest adjustment of an electron microscope.” “If we were to think of the world as a cell, the atom is even smaller than microscopic living creatures.” “Atoms are smaller than a human cell. Nothing we know can be compared to the size of an atom.”
Graph 2 Students’ responses to the question about the size of an atom
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
683
Conclusions and Implications This study shows that a significant percentage of students could not respond to a question about the shape of the atom. This indicates that students have difficulty developing a mental model about the concept of the atom (Cokelez, 2005). From another perspective, the study also shows that when students are asked to make a schematic drawing of an atom, 6th grade students choose the particle model while 7th grade students prefer the composition model. A lesser number of students than expected used the ball model. Moreover, although the electron cloud model is not a topic included in the curricula of the 6th and 7th grades, some 7th grade students chose this model to depict the atom. Contrary to previous research (Harrison and Treagust, 1996; Coll and Treagust, 2001), the study revealed that students did not always prefer simple, concrete models but instead tended to select complex, abstract models. Furthermore, 6th and 7th grade students were more likely to choose a solar system model or a composition model over a ball model of the atom. Also, the particle model was added to the list of models described in the literature (Cokelez and Dumon, 2005). While some 6th grade students compared the atom to a cell, this view was not encountered in the 7th grade. By the same token, while 6th grade students likened the atom to sand and molecules, these misconceptions were corrected by the conclusion of 7th grade. However, a significant increase did occur between 6th and the 7th grade students’ responses that compared the atom to the point of a needle, the head of a pin, or a dot. This study indicates that the knowledge and experience of students concerning atom models is considerably lacking. Students cannot differentiate between a model and reality (Cokelez, 2010). This finding suggests that students should receive clarification for model descriptions, types, and properties. Further, developing models should be incorporated into the curricula as classroom activities (Cokelez et al. 2008). Barlet and Plouin (1994) and Tsaparlis (1997) referred to students experiencing difficulty in conceptualising nanoscopic models used in science education. The researchers asserted that abstract concepts should be associated with students’ everyday life experiences and that this requires students to demonstrate the capability for a high level of abstract thinking. Instead of presenting the model as a simplified description of a reality observed by the scientist, the instructional methodology should lead students to wonder about the relevance of the model used to explain a phenomenon and to wonder about a model’s validity limits. Conceptions of different modelling sequences that relate to concepts are necessary, and those sequences should be presented in the classroom to determine effectiveness. By developing students’ understanding of models, modelling methods would evolve in a positive direction resulting in an increase for the effect of models in understanding abstract concepts in science education. In the science curriculum, no mention is made of the types of reference models to be taught. However, the description of models is generally paired with representation in the form of images or molecular models. Curriculum should be designed to make the students discover how the models and modelling activities correspond.
Appendix A: Questionnaire items 1. If you could examine an atom with all its details under a powerful microscope, what would you see? Show what you would see with a diagram.
684
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
2. How big are atoms? 3. Compare the size of an atom with something you know. B: Tables prepared based on students’ responses
Table 1 Data obtained from the students’ responses to the Question 1. Students’ responses
6th grade (n=76)
7th grade %
(n=50).
%
Solar System Model
8
10,5
14
28,0
Composition Atom Model
8
10,5
15
30,0
Particle Model Group of Atoms
16 5
21,1 6,6
4 -
8,0 0,0
Ball Model
6
7,9
1
2,0
Electron Cloud Model
-
0,0
4
8,0
Atom Molecule Confusion
2
2,6
2
4,0
Others
10
13,2
-
0,0
No response
21
27,6
10
20,0
Total
76
50
Table 2 Data obtained from the students’ responses to the Questions 2 and 3 Students’ responses
6th grade
7th grade
(n=76)
%
Very small
14
18.4 10
Too small to see
12
15.8 4
8.0
Too small to see even with a Microscope/electron Microscope
11
14.5 2
4.0
No response
19
25.0 15
30.0
Total Comparisons Cell
37 10
17 13.2 -
0.0
Point of a needle/head of a pin/dot
1
1.3
9
18.0
Microscopic living creatures (microbe, virus, bacteria, etc.)
3
3.9
3
6.0
Dust (Chalk dust, eraser dust, dust)
2
2.6
3
6.0
Ant/Flea Other
Marble
3 2
3.9 2.6
3 4
6.0 8.0
Sand
2
2.6
-
0
Molecule
2
2.6
-
0
Ball
2
2.6
1
2.0
Other
5
6.6
1
4.0
Total
32
Incomparable
7
Total
85
(n=50)
% 20.0
24 9.2
3 45
6.0
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
685
References Bachelard, S. (1979). Quelques aspects historiques des notions de modèle et de justification de modèles. In P. Delattre & M. Thellier (Eds.), Actes du colloque Elaboration et justification des modèles. Paris: Maloine. Barlet, R., & Plouin, D. (1994). La dualité microscopique-macroscopique un obstacle sous-jacent aux difficultés en chimie dans l’enseignement universitaire. Aster, 25, 142–173. Barquero, B. (1995). La representacio n de estados mentales en la comprension de textos desde el enfoque teorico de los modelos mentales. Doctoral Thesis. Madrid: Universidad Autonoma de Madrid. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Educion in Chemistry, 25, 89– 92. Bissuel, G. (2001). Et si la physique était symbolique? Paris: PUFC. Brehelin, D., Cross, D., & Sivade, A. (1994). Images spontanées et induites par l’enseignement du concept “atome” pour les élèves de collège. Bulletin de l’Union des Physiciens, 763, 711–729. Charlet-Brehelin, D. (1998). Contribution à l’enseignement - apprentissage du concept d’atome au collège. Thèse: Université Montpellier II. Cokelez, A. (2005). The register of models—atom; molecule; ion; chemical bond—in the teaching of the matter and its transformations at Upper Secondary School level (grades 10–12): from reference knowledge to acquired knowledge. France: University Victor Segalen (Bordeaux II). Cokelez, A. (2009). Students’ (Grade 7–9) Ideas On Particle Concept: Didactical Transposition. Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Education, 36, 64–75. Cokelez, A. (2010). A Comparative Study of French and Turkish Students (grades 11–12) Ideas on Acid – Base Reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 102–106. Cokelez, A., & Dumon, A. (2005). Atom and molecule: upper secondary school French students’ representations in long-term memory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(3), 119–135. Cokelez, A., Dumon, A., & Taber, K. S. (2008). Uper secondary French students, the chemical transformation and the models register. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 807–836. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357–382. de Kleer, J., & Brown, J. (1983). Assumptions and ambiguities in mechanistic mental models. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), mental models (pp. 155–190). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. de Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science education in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(6), 657–664. del Pozo, R. M. (2001). Prospective teacher’ ideas about the relationships between concepts describing the composing of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 353–371. Drouin, A.-M. (1988). Le modèle en questions. Aster, 7, 1–20. Drouin, A.-M., & Astolfi, J.-P. (1992). La modélisation à l’école élémentaire, in. INRP, Paris: Enseignement et apprentissage de la modélisation en science. Genzling, J.-C., & Pierrard, M.-A. (1994). La modélisation, la description, la conceptualisation, l’explication et la prédiction, in Nouveau regards sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de la modélisation en sciences. Paris: INRP. Gilbert, J.K., (1997), Exploring models and modeling in science and technology education, Reading: New Bulmershe Papers. Gilbert, J. K., Pietrocola, M., & Zylbersztajn, A. (2000). Science and Educationl: Notions of Reality, Theory and Model, In Developing models in science education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1–11. Griffiths, K. A., & Preston, R. K. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611–628. Grosslight, K., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conception of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 799–822. 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. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352–381. Host, V. (1989). Système et modèles: quelques repères bibliographiques. Aster, 8, 187–209. Keig, F. P., & Rubba, A. P. (1993). Translation of representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883–903.
686
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:673–686
Lee, O., Eichinger, C. D., Anderson, W. C., Berkheimer, D. G., & Blakeslee, D. T. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249–270. Martinand, J.-L., (1990), In J. Colomb et J.-L. Martinand: Enseignement et apprentissage de la modélisation, Rapport RCP INRP-LIREST. (p.116) Document multigraphié, Lirest. Paris, Université Paris 7. MEB. (2005a). 6th Grade Primary science and technology curriculum. Ankara: MEB. Yayınları. MEB. (2005b). 7th Grade Primary science and technology curriculum. Ankara: MEB. Yayınları. Paton, R. C. (1996). On a apparently simple modeling problem in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 55–64. Robardet, G. & Guillaud, J.-C., (1994), Eléments d’épistémologie et de didactique des sciences physiques, De la recherche à la pratique, Tome 1, Publication de l’IUFM de Grenoble. Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597–608. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamila, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368. Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic and molecular structure in chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(8), 922–925. Unlu, P. (2010). Pre-service physics teachers’ ideas on size, visibility and structure of the atom. European Journal of Physics, 31, 881–892. Walliser, B. (1977). Systèmes et modèles, introduction critique à l’analyse de systèmes. Paris: Seuil. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
