CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Science Education and PedagogyVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesEducational Methods and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Using Multiple Representations to Promote Grade 11 Students’ Scientific Understanding of the Particle Theory of Matter

Adadan, Emine·2013·Research in Science Education
DOI 10.1007/s11165-012-9299-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11165-012-9299-9

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 63 · Cited by 62

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Adadan, E. (2006). Promoting high school students’ conceptual understandings of the particulate nature of matter through multiple representations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
  2. 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 multirepresentational instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 1004–1035. · DOI
  3. Adbo, K., & Taber, K. S. (2009). Learners’ mental models of the particle nature of matter: a study of 16-year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 757–786. · DOI
  4. Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33, 131–152. · DOI
  5. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1269–1298. · DOI
  6. Baird, J. R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: a classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263–282. · DOI
  7. Boz, Y. (2006). Turkish pupils’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 203–213. · DOI
  8. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
  9. Bunce, D. M., & Gabel, D. L. (2002). Differential effects on the achievement of males and females of teaching the particulate nature of chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 911–927. · DOI
  10. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  11. Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94(1), 73–94. · DOI
  12. Dove, J. E., Everett, L. A., & Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Exploring a hydrologic concept through children’s drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 485–497. · DOI
  13. Feynman, R. P. (1995). Six easy pieces: Essentials of physics, explained by its most brilliant teacher. Reading: Helix Books.
  14. García Franco, A., & Taber, K. S. (2009). Secondary students’ thinking about familiar phenomena: learners’ explanations from a curriculum context where ‘particles’ is a key idea for organising teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1917–1952. · DOI
  15. Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: focusing on transfer, durability, and metacognition. Educational Research, 42(2), 119–139. · DOI
  16. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer. · DOI
  17. Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436–445. · DOI
  18. Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39–53. · DOI
  19. Gustafson, B. J., Shanahan, M.-C., & Gentilini, S. (2010). Elementary children’s shifting views of models and the nature of matter. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(2), 103–122. · DOI
  20. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In J. K. Gilbert, O. D. Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. V. Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189–212). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
  21. Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children’s understanding of a “basic” particle theory: a longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 393–412. · DOI
  22. Johnson, P., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: a substance-based framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 130–150. · DOI
  23. Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64(227), 377–379.
  24. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226. · DOI
  25. Liu, X., & Lesniak, K. (2005). Students’ progression of understanding the matter concept from elementary to high school. Science Education, 89(3), 433–450. · DOI
  26. Margel, H., Eylon, B.-S., & Scherz, 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. · DOI
  27. Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110–128). Kiel: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.
  28. Nakhleh, M. B., Samarapungavan, A., & Saglam, Y. (2005). Middle school students’ beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 581–612. · DOI
  29. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  30. Novak, J. (2005). Results and implications of a 12-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 35(1), 23–40. · DOI
  31. Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11(3), 183–200. · DOI
  32. Pereira, M. P., & Pestana, M. E. M. (1991). Pupils’ representations of models of water. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 313–319. · DOI
  33. Pozo, J. I., & Gόmez-Crespo, M. (2005). The embodied nature of implicit theories: the consistency of ideas about the nature of matter. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 351–387. · DOI
  34. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 179–201. · DOI
  35. Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787–808. · DOI
  36. Sanger, M. J. (2000). Using particulate drawings to determine and improve students’ conceptions of pure substances and mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(6), 762–766. · DOI
  37. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, B., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Swartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Designing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. · DOI
  38. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237. · DOI
  39. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  40. Singer, J. E., Tal, R., & Wu, H. K. (2003). Students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter. School Science and Mathematics, 103(1), 28–44. · DOI
  41. Snir, J., Raz, G., & Smith, C. L. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: a software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter. Science Education, 87(6), 794–830. · DOI
  42. Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687–715. · DOI
  43. Taber, K. S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(2), 123–158. · DOI
  44. Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: the case of “structure of matter”. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123–2136. · DOI
  45. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
  46. Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 141–159. · DOI
  47. Treagust, D. F., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 297–328. · DOI
  48. Tsai, C. C. (1999). Overcoming junior high school students’ misconceptions about microscopic views of phase change: a study of an analogy activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 83–91. · DOI
  49. Tsitsipis, G., Stamovlasis, D., & Papageorgiou, G. (2011). A probabilistic model for students’ errors and misconceptions on the structure of matter in relation to three cognitive variables. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-011-9288-x . · DOI
  50. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585. · DOI
  51. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 381–419. · DOI
  52. White, R. T., & Arzi, H. J. (2005). Longitudinal studies: designs, validity, practicality, and value. Research in Science Education, 35(1), 137–149. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Williamson, V. M. (1992). The effects of computer animation emphasizing the particulate nature of matter on the understandings and misconceptions of college chemistry students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, Norman.
  54. Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521–534. · DOI
  55. Yang, E., Andre, T., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2003). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 329–349. · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Adadan, E.
Affiliations
Boğaziçi University (TR)
Corresponding author
Adadan, Emine
ORCID
Adadan, Emine
Venue
Research in Science Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-06-15
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
1079-1105
ISSN
  • 0157-244X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1898
DOI
10.1007/s11165-012-9299-9
OpenAlex
W1968913399
Cited by
62
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 8 · 2013: 2
FWCI
15.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
Research in Science Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Outcomes
Keywords
multiple representations, verbal representation, conceptual understanding, conceptual change, high school science education, chemistry education, student misconceptions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review