Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry

By Allan G. Harrison, David F. Treagust. 2000

431 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Physical and Theoretical Chemistry

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b83b049ef496cc81daf66844c1d29c47778cbc7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Physical and Theoretical Chemistry

Citations in the corpus

Characterizing and Improving Spatial Visualization Skills (2009, background): “Other examples of the benefits of practice with spatial visualization skills exist for fields including chemistry (e.g. Harrison and Treagust, 2000; Wu et al., 2001; Wu and Shah, 2004), mathematics (e.g. Steen, 1990; Loeb, 1992; Emmer, 1993), and geography (MacEachren, 1995).”
A Review of Solution Chemistry Studies: Insights into Students’ Conceptions (2005, background): “Chemical knowledge is learned at three levels: “sub-microscopic,” “macroscopic” and “symbolic” and the link between these levels should be explicitly taught (Johnstone, 1991; Gabel, 1992; Harrison and Treagust, 2000; Ebenezer, 2001; Ravialo, 2001; Treagust et al., 2003).”
Teaching and learning with analogies : friend or foe (2006, methodology): “When teachers present analogies using the FAR guide framework, it is our experience that students’ scientific understanding is enhanced and the variety and frequency of alternative conceptions are diminished (Harrison & Treagust, 2000).”
The Case for Dynamic Models of Learners' Ontologies in Physics (2008, background): “In recent years, this view has been applied to a variety of traditionally difficult to teach areas of science ( Harrison & Treagust, 20 00; Furio & Guisasola, 1998; Chiu, Chou, & Liu, 2002; Clark, 2006; Ferrari & Chi, 1998; Johnston & Southerland, 2000; Streveler, et. al., 2006).”
Teaching and Learning with Analogies (2006, methodology): “framework, it is our experience that students’ scientific understanding is enhanced and the variety and frequency of alternative conceptions are diminished ( Harrison & Treagust, 2000 ).”
Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom (2001, background): “After students develop basic understanding of bonding, teachers could provide various 3D models and guide group discussions of how different models convey different information of bonding, atom size, and electron, as Harrison and Treagust (2000) suggested in their case study.”
STUDENTS’ CONCEPTIONS OF THE PARTICULATE NATURE OF MATTER AT SECONDARY AND TERTIARY LEVEL (2010, neutral): “…1998; Sisovic & Bojovic, 2000), atoms and molecules (Ben-Zvi, Eylon & Silberstein, 1986; Griffiths & Preston, 1992; Nakhleh & Samarapungavan, 1999; Harrison & Treagust, 2000), and the particulate nature of matter (Gabel, Samuel & Hunn, 1987; Gabel, 1993; de Vos & Verdonk, 1996; Valanides, 2000;…”
Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Understanding of Metallic Bonding (2008, background): “... 1990; Hackling and Garnett 1985; Pedrosa and Dias 2000; Van Driel 2002; Voska and Heikkinen 2000); acids and bases (Bradley and Mosimege 1998; Hand and Treagust 1991; Nakhleh 1992; Nakhleh and Krajcik 1994; Sisovic and Bojovic 2000); electrochemistry (Acar and Tarhan 2006; Garnett and Treagust 1”
A review of chemical bonding studies: needs, aims, methods of exploring students’ conceptions, general knowledge claims and students’ alternative conceptions (2006, methodology): “…and analogies (Harrison & Treagust, 2000; Coll & Treagust, 2001a; Eshach & Garik, 2001; Nicoll, 2001), mental models (Coll & Treagust, 2001a, b, 2003; Coll & Taylor, 2002; Taber & Coll, 2002) and enhancing students’ conceptual understanding (Barker & Millar, 2000; Harrison & Treagust, 2000).”
How do Teachers and Textbook Writers Model Scientific Ideas for Students? (2001, background): “Hans insists on consensus on model form and use, Steve values familiar analogs (Glynn, 1991), Karen likes models that can be modified to develop ideas (Grosslight, Unger, Jay, & Smith, 1991), Cindy prefers multiple models ( Harrison & Treagust, 2000 ) and Ian feels that effective models are personal”