Effects of Three Neo Piagetian Constructs on Students’ Portrayed Representations of the Atomic Structure: A Latent Class Analysis
Abstract
The present study investigates the effect of three neo-Piagetian constructs, namely Formal Reasoning (FR), Field Dependence/ Independence (FDI) and Divergence (DIV), as well as the effect of age and gender, on students’ portrayed representations of the atomic structure, taking into account their degree of coherence. For this purpose students’ representations were examined for their consistency across three task contexts, using Latent Class Analysis (LCA), in order to identify distinct latent classes of participants providing specific consistent representations. Participants (n=421) were students of the grades 8th, 10th and 12th of secondary education. LCA led to three clusters, in each of which, students’ responses demonstrated a consistency across tasks, with Bohr’s model, Nuclear model and Particle model, respectively. LCA with the covariates provided evidence for the association of the three cluster-memberships with the neo-Piagetian variables and age, while no effect of gender was found. Implications for science education are also discussed.References
Allred, Z. D. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2019). University chemistry students’ interpretations of multiple representations of the helium atom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(2), 358-368.
Bahar, M., & Hansell, M. H. (2000). The relationship between some psychological factors and their effect on the performance of grid questions and word association tests. Educational psychology, 20(3), 349-364.
Bakk, Z., Tekle, F. B., & Vermunt, J. K. (2013). Estimating the association between latent class membership and external variables using bias-adjusted three-step approaches. Sociological methodology, 43(1), 272-311.
Clogg, C. C. (1995). “Latent class models,” in Handbook of Statistical Modeling for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, eds G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, and M. E. Sobel (New York, NY: Plenum), 311–359.
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. (2012). Junior high school students’ ideas about the shape and size of the atom. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 673-686.
Dangur, V., Avargil, S., Peskin, U., & Dori, Y. J. (2014). Learning quantum chemistry via a visual-conceptual approach: students' bidirectional textual and visual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(3), 297-310.
Danili, E., & Reid, N. (2006). Cognitive factors that can potentially affect pupils’ test performance. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 64-83.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.
disessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive science, 28(6), 843-900.
Greek Pedagogical Institute. (2003). National Program of Study for Primary and Secondary Education: Science. Athens (Greece): Greek Pedagogical Institute Publications.
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.
Kalkanis, G., Hadzidaki, P., & Stavrou, D. (2003). An instructional model for a radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics concepts. Science education, 87(2), 257-280.
Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11-24.
McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 4(1), 010103.
Nakiboglu, C. (2003). Instructional misconceptions of Turkish prospective chemistry teachers about atomic orbitals and hybridization. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4(2), 171-188.
Papageorgiou, G., Markos, A., & Zarkadis, N. (2016a). Students' representations of the atomic structure–the effect of some individual differences in particular task contexts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 209-219.
Papageorgiou, G., Markos, A., & Zarkadis, N. (2016b). Understanding the Atom and Relevant Misconceptions: Students' Profiles in Relation to Three Cognitive Variables. Science Education International, 27(4), 464-488.
Papaphotis, G., & Tsaparlis, G. (2008). Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: the case of basic quantum chemical concepts. Part 2. Students’ common errors, misconceptions and difficulties in understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(4), 332-340.
Park, E. J., & Light, G. (2009). Identifying atomic structure as a threshold concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness. International journal of science education, 31(2), 233-258.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget’s developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 32, 301–345.
Rau, M. A. (2015). Enhancing undergraduate chemistry learning by helping students make connections among multiple graphical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 654-669.
Stamovlasis, D., & Papageorgiou, G. (2012). Understanding chemical change in primary education: The effect of two cognitive variables. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 177-197.
Stamovlasis, D., Papageorgiou, G., & Tsitsipis, G. (2013). The coherent versus fragmented knowledge hypotheses for the structure of matter: an investigation with a robust statistical methodology. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 485-495.
Taber, K. S. (2002). Conceptualizing quanta: Illuminating the ground state of student understanding of atomic orbitals. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 3(2), 145-158.
Taber, K. S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89(1), 94-116.
Tsaparlis, G., & Papaphotis, G. (2009). High school Students' Conceptual Difficulties and Attempts at Conceptual Change: The case of basic quantum chemical concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 895-930.
Tsitsipis, G., Stamovlasis, D., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). The effect of three cognitive variables on students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its changes of state. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 987-1016.
Tsitsipis G., Stamovlasis D., & Papageorgiou, G. (2012). A probabilistic model for students’ errors and misconceptions in relation to three cognitive variables, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4), 777–802.
Vermunt J. K., & Magidson J. (2000). Latent GOLD 2.0, User’s Guide. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc.
Wang, C. Y., & Barrow, L. H. (2013). Exploring conceptual frameworks of models of atomic structures and periodic variations, chemical bonding, and molecular shape and polarity: a comparison of undergraduate general chemistry students with high and low levels of content knowledge. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(1), 130-146.
Witkin H. A., Oltman P. K., Raskin E. & Karp S. A. (1971). Embedded figures test, children’s embedded figures test, group embedded figures test: manual, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Zarkadis, N., & Papageorgiou, G. (2020). A fine-grained analysis of students’ explanations based on their knowledge of the atomic structure. International Journal of Science Education, 1-21.
Zarkadis, N., Papageorgiou, G., & Stamovlasis, D. (2017). Studying the consistency between and within the student mental models for atomic structure. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 893-902.
Bahar, M., & Hansell, M. H. (2000). The relationship between some psychological factors and their effect on the performance of grid questions and word association tests. Educational psychology, 20(3), 349-364.
Bakk, Z., Tekle, F. B., & Vermunt, J. K. (2013). Estimating the association between latent class membership and external variables using bias-adjusted three-step approaches. Sociological methodology, 43(1), 272-311.
Clogg, C. C. (1995). “Latent class models,” in Handbook of Statistical Modeling for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, eds G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, and M. E. Sobel (New York, NY: Plenum), 311–359.
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. (2012). Junior high school students’ ideas about the shape and size of the atom. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 673-686.
Dangur, V., Avargil, S., Peskin, U., & Dori, Y. J. (2014). Learning quantum chemistry via a visual-conceptual approach: students' bidirectional textual and visual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(3), 297-310.
Danili, E., & Reid, N. (2006). Cognitive factors that can potentially affect pupils’ test performance. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 64-83.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.
disessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive science, 28(6), 843-900.
Greek Pedagogical Institute. (2003). National Program of Study for Primary and Secondary Education: Science. Athens (Greece): Greek Pedagogical Institute Publications.
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.
Kalkanis, G., Hadzidaki, P., & Stavrou, D. (2003). An instructional model for a radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics concepts. Science education, 87(2), 257-280.
Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11-24.
McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 4(1), 010103.
Nakiboglu, C. (2003). Instructional misconceptions of Turkish prospective chemistry teachers about atomic orbitals and hybridization. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4(2), 171-188.
Papageorgiou, G., Markos, A., & Zarkadis, N. (2016a). Students' representations of the atomic structure–the effect of some individual differences in particular task contexts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 209-219.
Papageorgiou, G., Markos, A., & Zarkadis, N. (2016b). Understanding the Atom and Relevant Misconceptions: Students' Profiles in Relation to Three Cognitive Variables. Science Education International, 27(4), 464-488.
Papaphotis, G., & Tsaparlis, G. (2008). Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: the case of basic quantum chemical concepts. Part 2. Students’ common errors, misconceptions and difficulties in understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(4), 332-340.
Park, E. J., & Light, G. (2009). Identifying atomic structure as a threshold concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness. International journal of science education, 31(2), 233-258.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget’s developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 32, 301–345.
Rau, M. A. (2015). Enhancing undergraduate chemistry learning by helping students make connections among multiple graphical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 654-669.
Stamovlasis, D., & Papageorgiou, G. (2012). Understanding chemical change in primary education: The effect of two cognitive variables. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 177-197.
Stamovlasis, D., Papageorgiou, G., & Tsitsipis, G. (2013). The coherent versus fragmented knowledge hypotheses for the structure of matter: an investigation with a robust statistical methodology. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 485-495.
Taber, K. S. (2002). Conceptualizing quanta: Illuminating the ground state of student understanding of atomic orbitals. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 3(2), 145-158.
Taber, K. S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89(1), 94-116.
Tsaparlis, G., & Papaphotis, G. (2009). High school Students' Conceptual Difficulties and Attempts at Conceptual Change: The case of basic quantum chemical concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 895-930.
Tsitsipis, G., Stamovlasis, D., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). The effect of three cognitive variables on students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its changes of state. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 987-1016.
Tsitsipis G., Stamovlasis D., & Papageorgiou, G. (2012). A probabilistic model for students’ errors and misconceptions in relation to three cognitive variables, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4), 777–802.
Vermunt J. K., & Magidson J. (2000). Latent GOLD 2.0, User’s Guide. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc.
Wang, C. Y., & Barrow, L. H. (2013). Exploring conceptual frameworks of models of atomic structures and periodic variations, chemical bonding, and molecular shape and polarity: a comparison of undergraduate general chemistry students with high and low levels of content knowledge. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(1), 130-146.
Witkin H. A., Oltman P. K., Raskin E. & Karp S. A. (1971). Embedded figures test, children’s embedded figures test, group embedded figures test: manual, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Zarkadis, N., & Papageorgiou, G. (2020). A fine-grained analysis of students’ explanations based on their knowledge of the atomic structure. International Journal of Science Education, 1-21.
Zarkadis, N., Papageorgiou, G., & Stamovlasis, D. (2017). Studying the consistency between and within the student mental models for atomic structure. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 893-902.
Published
2021-03-13
How to Cite
ZARKADIS, Nikolaos; STAMOVLASIS, Dimitrios; PAPAGEORGIOU, George.
Effects of Three Neo Piagetian Constructs on Students’ Portrayed Representations of the Atomic Structure: A Latent Class Analysis.
European Journal of Physics Education, [S.l.], v. 12, n. 1, p. 1-14, mar. 2021.
ISSN 1309-7202.
Available at: <https://eu-journal.org/index.php/EJPE/article/view/306>. Date accessed: 26 apr. 2024.
doi: https://doi.org/10.20308/ejpe.v12i1.306.
Issue
Section
Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The copyright for all articles belongs to the authors. All other copyright is held by the journal.
