The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change
Abstract
In this chapter, we review the evidence that elementary-school students need to make major conceptual changes to develop a sound macroscopic understanding of matter that in turn supports understanding the atomic–molecular theory in middle school. We place the development of these ideas within the broader context of a learning progression for matter, whose beginning lies in infants’ concepts of object and non-solids. We argue that this learning progression encompasses fundamental changes in a broad network of concepts – not only matter and substance, but also weight, volume, density, solid, liquid and gas – whose depth and scope have not always been clearly recognized by the science education community. Those changes are interrelated with changes in mathematical and epistemological understanding – about the validity of perceptual data unmediated by measuring instruments, the nature of numbers and measurement, and the role of theories and scientific models. We examine those conceptual changes and the difficulties they pose for students. For many students, the conceptions developed in early childhood are never revised sufficiently or even productively, suggesting that teaching about matter in elementary school needs to be rethought. We also present evidence that elementary-school students could achieve the necessary reconceptualizations with appropriate curricular support.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.2307/747886 · Cited by 518
Cited by
Fifteen Years of Explaining Pain: The Past, Present, and Future
Moseley, G. L., & Butler, D. S. (2015) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2015.05.005 · Cited by 856
Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Decker, A.-T., Büttner, G., Hardy, I., Klieme, E., & Kunter, M. (2019) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.102882 · Cited by 484
A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.838920 · Cited by 306
Glogger-Frey, I., Fleischer, C., Grüny, L., Kappich, J., & Renkl, A. (2015) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.001 · Cited by 151
Ausubel’s meaningful learning re-visited
Bryce, T. G. K., & Blown, E. J. (2024) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-023-04440-4 · Cited by 84
Bridging secondary and higher education. The importance of self-regulated learning
Vosniadou, S. (2020) · European Review · doi:10.1017/s1062798720000939 · Cited by 71
Self-citationInvention Versus Direct Instruction: For Some Content, It’s a Tie
Chase, C. C., & Klahr, D. (2017) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-017-9700-6 · Cited by 52
Glogger-Frey, I., Treier, A.-K., & Renkl, A. (2022) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-022-09577-6 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2013-07-18
- OpenAlex
- W1825727708
- Cited by
- 705
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 34.83
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.