Advertisement

Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 763–787 | Cite as

Primary Teachers’ Understanding of Four Chemical Phenomena: Effect of an In-Service Training Course

  • George Papageorgiou
  • Dimitrios Stamovlasis
  • Philip Johnson
Article

Abstract

One hundred and thirty Greek primary school teachers participated in a study, where the effectiveness of a specially designed intervention on chemical changes was tested. The study took place in the wider context of an in-service training course where the key feature was an innovative approach based on the concept of a substance and its transformations, physical and chemical. In the present paper the focus is on the chemical transformations of substances. Pre-intervention, teachers were found to have a relatively limited ability in explaining chemical changes, which depends on the characteristics of the particular change, and they held a number of misconceptions similar to those of pupils. Post-intervention, teachers’ descriptions and explanations were found to be significantly improved. Also, a relationship between teachers’ particle ideas and their explanations was found. Implications for science education are also discussed.

Keywords

Primary teachers Particle ideas Chemical phenomena In-service training 

References

  1. Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham, M. R., Gizybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W., & Marek, E. A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils’ conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12–16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32, 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boo, H.-K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students’ (Aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85, 568–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boujaoude, S. B. (1991). A study of the nature of students’ understanding about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 689–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boz, N., & Boz, Y. (2008). A qualitative case study of prospective chemistry teachers’ knowledge about instructional strategies: Introducing particulate theory. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brosnan, T., & Reynolds, Y. (2001). Student’s explanations of chemical phenomena: Macro and micro differences. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(1), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Çalık, M. (2008). Facilitating students’ conceptual understanding of boiling using a four-step constructivist teaching method. Research in Science and Technological Education, 26(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005). A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheung, D., Ma, H.-J., & Yang, J. (2009). Teachers’ misconceptions about the effects of addition of more reactants or products on chemistry equilibrium. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1111–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cokelez, A., Dumon, A., & Taber, K. S. (2008). Upper secondary French students, chemical transformations and the “register of models”: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 807–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. del Pozo, R. M. (2001). Prospective teachers’ ideas about the relationships between concepts describing the composition of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driver, R. (1985). Beyond appearances: The conservation of matter under physical and chemical transformations. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 145–169). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Field, A. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed and random effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franco, A. G., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Georgousi, K., Kampourakis, C., & Tsaparlis, G. (2001). Physical-science knowledge and patterns of achievement at the primary-secondary interface, part 2: Able and top-achieving students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(3), 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greek Ministry of National Education and Religion Affairs. (1985). National Program of Study for Primary Education. Athens (Greece): Greek Publishing Association of textbooks.Google Scholar
  22. Greek Pedagogical Institute. (2003). National Program of Study for Primary and Secondary Education: Science. Athens (Greece): Greek Pedagogical Institute Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Haider, A. H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of the conservation of matter and related concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hatcher, L., & Stepansky, E. J. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for univariate and multivariate statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  25. Jarvis, T., Pell, A., & Mckeon, F. (2003). Changes in primary teachers’ science knowledge and understanding during a two year in-service programme. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21(1), 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Javis, T., & Pell, A. (2004). Primary teaches’ changing attitudes and cognition during a two-year science in-service programme and their effect on pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1787–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, P. M. (2000). Children’s understanding of substances, part 1: Recognizing chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, P. M. (2002). Children’s understanding of substances, part 2: Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1037–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, P. M., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substance-based framework”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 130–150.Google Scholar
  30. Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Kokkotas, P., Vlachos, I., & Koulaidis, V. (1998). Teaching the topic of the particulate nature of matter in prospective teachers’ training courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glazar, S. A. (1998). Survey of research related to the development of the concept of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 257–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liang, L., & Gabel, D. (2005). Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to Science instruction for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1143–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu, X., & Lesniak, K. (2006). Progression in children’s understanding of the matter concept from elementary to high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 320–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mertens, D. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Murphy, C., Neil, P., & Beggs, J. (2007). Primary science teacher confidence revisited: Ten years on. Educational Research, 49(4), 415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ozmen, H. (2008). Determination of students’ alternative conceptions about chemical equilibrium: A review of research and the case of Turkey. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Papageorgiou, G., Grammatikopoulou, M., & Johnson, P. M. (2010a). Should we teach primary pupils about chemical change? International Journal of Science Education, 32(12), 1647–1664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Papageorgiou, G., & Johnson, P. M. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils’ understanding of phenomena? International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1299–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Papageorgiou, G., Johnson, P. M., & Fotiades, F. (2008). Explaining melting and evaporation below boiling point. Can software help with particle ideas? Research in Science and Technological Education, 26(2), 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Papageorgiou, G., Kogianni, E., & Makris, N. (2007). Primary teachers’ views and descriptions regarding some science activities. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(1), 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Papageorgiou, G., & Sakka, D. (2000). Primary school teachers’ views on fundamental chemical concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(2), 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Papageorgiou, G., Stamovlasis, D., & Johnson, P. M. (2010b). Primary teachers’ particle ideas and explanations of physical phenomena: The effect of an in-service training course. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioural research: A correlational approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schibeci, R. A., & Hickey, R. (2000). Is it natural or processed? Elementary school teachers’ and conceptions about materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1154–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  47. Solsona, N. J., Izquierdo, M., & De Jong, O. (2003). Exploring the development of students’ conceptual profiles of chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stains, M., & Talanquer, V. (2008). Classification of chemical reactions: Stages of expertise. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 771–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1998). Conceptual reorganization and the construction of chemical reaction concept during secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Summers, M. (1992). Improving primary school teachers’ understanding of science concepts—theory into practice. International Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Papageorgiou
    • 1
  • Dimitrios Stamovlasis
    • 2
  • Philip Johnson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Primary EducationDemocritus University of ThraceAlexandroupolisGreece
  2. 2.Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and EducationAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.School of EducationUniversity of DurhamDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations