Skip to main content

Implicit Assumptions and Progress Variables in a Learning Progression About Structure and Motion of Matter

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Concepts of Matter in Science Education

Part of the book series: Innovations in Science Education and Technology ((ISET,volume 19))

Abstract

This chapter presents one iteration in the refinement, or validation, of a learning progression of the structure of matter. The initial, hypothetical particulate nature of matter learning progression described likely pathways in the development of learners’ implicit assumptions, which are presuppositions about the nature of entities that guide and constrain people’s reasoning involving those entities. Refinement of the learning progression involved developing an assessment to measure which implicit assumptions are held about the structure and motion of matter by students aged 13 to graduation from university. The development of this previously published assessment based on the phenomenon of diffusion is briefly summarized in the service of showing that the instrument’s use with a large sample of students permits the clarification of progress variables. Progress variables allow for measuring the occurrence of more sophisticated implicit assumptions to be determined by ascertaining students’ thinking patterns. Examples of students’ responses to survey questions are provided to illustrate how the implicit assumptions constraining students’ thinking are evident in different thinking patterns along two of the progress variables. The iteration – from hypothetical learning progression to development of an assessment to measure students’ implicit assumptions to interpretation of student data – served as a validation cycle that refined the learning progression. It also lent insight into how the curriculum in use in the schools from which the participants were drawn shaped the students’ development of particular implicit assumptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    © 2010, Stains & Sevian, freely available at http://sites.google.com/site/sammsurvey/

References

  • Alonzo, A., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2008). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 127–154). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science education and in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 657–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. F. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 285–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). Developing assessments for a learning progression on carbon-transforming processes in socio-ecological systems. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science (pp. 151–182). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (2005). The development of children’s concept of a substance: A longitudinal study of interaction between curriculum and learning. Research in Science Education, 35(1), 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P., & Tymms, P. (2011). The emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 849–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas (2nd ed.). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence Hall of Science. (2006). Chemical interactions. In Full option science system for middle school. Berkeley: Lawrence Hall of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Breyer, F. J., Almond, R. G., & Johnson, L. (2002). Making sense of data from complex assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(4), 363–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • xxx

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2010). NCTM public comments on the common core standards for mathematics. Retrieved May 29, 2011, from http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=25186

  • National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J. Pelligrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Report to the President: Prepare and inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) for America’s future, September 2010 Prepublication version, Washington, DC. Retrieved May 29, 2011, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf

  • Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation: Emergent versus submergent perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1585–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salinas, I. (2009, June). Learning progressions in science education: Two approaches for development. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) conference, Iowa City. Available from http://www.education.uiowa.edu/projects/leaps/proceedings/

  • Scheffel, L., Brockmeier, W., & Parchmann, I. (2009). Historical material in micro-macro-thinking: Conceptual change in chemistry education and in the history of chemistry. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 215–250). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sevian, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012, March 29). Using learning progressions to improve science teaching and learning. Short course presented at the National Science Teachers Association Conference, Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikorski, T.-R. & Hammer, D. (2010, June 29–July 2). A critique of how learning progressions research conceptualizes sophistication and progress. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1032–1039), Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stains, M., & Sevian, H. (2013). Uncovering implicit assumptions: A large-scale study on students’ mental models of diffusion. Manuscript submitted for review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stains, M., Escriu-Suñé, M., Molina Alvarez, M. L., & Sevian, H. (2011). Assessing secondary and college students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: Development and validation of the structure and motion of matter (SAMM) survey. Journal of Chemical Education, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S., & García Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 99–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talanquer, V. (2006). Common sense chemistry: A model for understanding students’ alternative conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 811–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: The case of structure of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123–2136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2002). Mental models in conceptual development. In L. Magnani & N. J. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values. New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth – A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.), The international handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205–239). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, M., Smith, C. L., & Doubler, S. (2012). Learning progressions as tools for curriculum development: Lessons from the inquiry project. In A. Alonzo & A. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science (pp. 359–404). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments 

This chapter is based on work supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), while one of the authors (HS) was working at the Foundation, under her Independent Research and Development plan approved by the agency, and as part of an internal portfolio analysis to study NSF’s footprint on learning progressions research. The SAMM study described in this work was also supported, in part, by NSF award EHR-0412390. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannah Sevian .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sevian, H., Stains, M. (2013). Implicit Assumptions and Progress Variables in a Learning Progression About Structure and Motion of Matter. In: Tsaparlis, G., Sevian, H. (eds) Concepts of Matter in Science Education. Innovations in Science Education and Technology, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5914-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics