Assessing Teachers' Conceptions with the Chemistry Concepts

Research: Science and Education edited by

Chemical Education Research

Diane M. Bunce The Catholic University of America Washington, DC 20064

A Comparison Study: Assessing Teachers’ Conceptions with the Chemistry Concepts Inventory

Amy J. Phelps Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Rebecca A. Kruse* Department of Chemistry and Physics, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA 70402; *[email protected] Gillian H. Roehrig Curriculum and Instruction, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455

Current science education reforms advocate that science in our schools must be for all students with inquiry playing a central role in meeting the needs of diverse student populations (1–3). Teacher quality has been identified as a critical issue related to student achievement, with minority and poor students less likely to have access to a highly qualified teacher and quality science education (4). Ingersoll reports that 56% of students in secondary physical science classes were taught by teachers without even a minor in physics, chemistry, geology, or earth science (5). Yet, teaching science as inquiry requires that teachers have a highly structured and deep conceptual knowledge base (6). Unfortunately, teachers with a major in their teaching area have been found to have poorly organized subject matter knowledge (7, 8) and out-of-discipline teachers are even more likely to have limited and fragmented understanding of the subject (6, 9,10). For years, practitioners and researchers have explored how to better assist students in developing a robust conceptual understanding of chemistry. Three levels of chemical representations have been discussed: macroscopic (observable properties and processes), microscopic (arrangement and motions of particles), and symbolic (chemical and mathematical notations and equations) (11, 12). Many fundamental concepts in chemistry involve microscopic and symbolic representations, which are especially difficult for students to learn. Students’ understandings rely primarily on sensory experiences that provide information about tangible, macroscopic phenomena rather than particulate-level explanations. Understanding the microscopic and symbolic representations of matter requires some abstraction, often through the development and use of mental models and images (e.g., 13–15). Although these chemical representations are the critical elements of chemical language and inquiry (16–18), most students are unable to visualize and interpret these representations, thus impairing their ability to move from microscopic and symbolic representations to the nature of physical or chemical properties (19). To support student understanding at this interface, teachers’ structured and deep conceptual knowledge base must include the ability to translate between the macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations of chemistry, and specifically, in making meaningful connections between observations of macroscopic phenomena and explanations at the particulate level (20–22). 1246

Journal of Chemical Education

•

Study Overview The study was designed to assess the conceptions of chemistry teachers with diverse backgrounds within a large urban district. The study utilized the Chemistry Concepts Inventory (CCI) (23) and Mulford and Robinson’s research study reported recently in this Journal (24). The 22-question conceptual inventory was administered as a 30-minute test to chemistry teachers at a district professional development event. Teacher responses were analyzed by item to determine the presence of alternate conceptions. Parallels were made between teachers’ alternate conceptions and those of entering college students, as reported by Mulford and Robinson (24). Contextual factors contributing to teachers’ conceptions, such as degree major and credential status, were analyzed from data collected from two groups of teachers.

Participants The participants included 45 teachers of a large urban school district participating in professional development activities related to the adoption of a new reform-based chemistry curriculum. Of the 45 participants 25 were new to teaching chemistry (having taught it less than five years), with 14 of those 25 in their first or second year of teaching. Of the 45 participants, 16 had a degree major or a secondary single subject teaching credential in chemistry, while 14 had a credential in life science, biological science, mathematics or other subject with a supplemental authorization in chemistry (by examination). The state of California, in response to recent No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation,1 considers the 14 teachers with supplemental authorizations in chemistry and the remaining 15 non-chemistry certified teachers as teaching out-of-discipline, and thus, not compliant with NCLB legislation (25). The average years of teaching chemistry were ~7.1 (SD ± 8.4 years) with a range of 1 to 35 years. Of the total 45 participants 22 were female; females account for 60% of the teachers new to teaching chemistry. Data Collection and Analysis This study was embedded within a segment of professional development with two explicit purposes. The first professional development purpose was to familiarize teachers with research regarding conceptual understanding and students’ alternate conceptions of chemistry. The second purpose was

Vol. 82 No. 8 August 2005

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Research: Science and Education

to assess teachers’ own conceptions in order to inform future professional development experiences. The rationale for this experience was to increase teachers’ awareness of students’ prior knowledge of chemistry as a foundation for further learning by providing a situation that challenged the validity of their own conceptions. The teachers completed the CCI then read and discussed Mulford and Robinson’s research findings (24). Tests were hand scored, double checked for accuracy, and then returned to the teachers who were provided opportunities to address any specific items in the CCI and to reflect on their own understandings of chemistry through group discussion. Data were tabulated to reflect the percent of teachers with either the correct response or alternate response per question. These data were then compared to student data reported in Mulford and Robinson (24) to assess any parallels between student and teacher alternate conceptions. To ensure teachers’ full participation through anonymity, the teachers were asked not to write their names on the CCI; however, they were asked to complete an attached demographic survey that included degree(s) and major, teaching certification(s), years experience teaching chemistry, and total years of experience teaching. The CCI scores and corresponding demographic data allowed for a preliminary assessment of contextual factors contributing to teachers’ conceptual understanding. Qualitative data were collected through solicited and unsolicited communications with teachers during and following the professional development event, including interviews regarding teacher beliefs and concerns about implementing an inquirybased curriculum to all students. These interviews were administered before and after teachers completed a field test of a new reform-based curriculum with their students.

Correct Responses (%)

Results The CCI scores of the 45 chemistry teachers averaged 72.3%, 15.9 out of 22 (SD = 3.35). Individual scores ranged from 8 to 22. This percentage is approximately 27% higher than the entering college student pre-test average reported by Mulford and Robinson (24). Briefly, the scores on the pretest of 1418 entering college students averaged 45.5%, 10.0 out of 22 (SD = 3.86) with individual scores ranging from 1 to 22. In the following section we will first present the quantita-

100 80 60 40 20 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Chemistry Concepts Inventory Item Number Figure 1. Percentage of correct responses given by chemistry teachers on each item of the Chemistry Concepts Inventory (CCI). The CCI scores of the 45 chemistry teachers averaged 72.3%, 15.9 items answered correctly out of 22 total (SD = 3.35). Individual scores ranged from 8 to 22 items answered correctly.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

tive results of the teachers’ CCI scores as compared to the student results reported previously. Second, we will explore the origins and impacts of the teachers’ alternate conceptions on teaching and student learning with qualitative interpretations.

Quantitative Results In the following discussion, the percentage refers to the percentage of teachers or students (from Mulford and Robinson’s pretest) selecting a response on the test, except where noted. The teachers generally scored higher than students on all items with a similar distribution of alternative conceptions and most commonly incorrect items. Figure 1 shows that teachers scored in the 76–100% range for inventory items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19. With the exception of items 2, 4, and 6, student pretest scores on these same items were in the 50–90% range, differing from teacher scores 9–44%. Most of these items address transformations of matter, or more specifically, conservation of mass; however, Mulford and Robinson believe that some of these questions prompted simple recall rather than addressing a conceptual issue. One such example includes paired items 12 and 13. More participants (teachers and students) answered correctly with an explanation of “conservation of mass” in item 13 than answered “27.0 grams”—that is, the same mass before and after the phase change—in item 12. For more in-depth discussion of these items refer to the original study (24). Teachers scored in the 50–75% range for inventory items 5, 9, 14, 16, 17, 20, and 21 as shown in Figure 1. Student pretest scores on these same items were all below 50%, averaging approximately 35% lower than teachers. Responses to question 5 suggest poor understanding of chemical formulas and equations. In comparison to 11% of students, 50% of teachers selected the correct answer. Combining responses a, c, and e, 46% of the teachers chose responses that do not conserve atoms, compared to 65% of students. Combining responses a, b, and e indicates that 22% of the teachers appear not to understand the difference between coefficients in balanced equations and subscripts in chemical formulas, with 74% of students sharing the same misunderstanding. Middle school to college-level students’ alternate conceptions regarding the energetics of chemical bonding have been reported in the literature (e.g., 26–29). A common alternate conception is that breaking chemical bonds releases energy while bond making requires energy. Reponses to question 9 indicate that 30% of teachers believe that breaking H–H and O–O bonds releases energy compared to 72% of the student sample. Responses to question 14 indicate that teachers and students have difficulty with the microscopic nature of atoms. Compared to 75% of the student sample, 33% of the teachers stated that the number of carbon atoms contained in a dot (.) was the familiar Avogadro number, indicating a lack of understanding of the size of a carbon atom relative to the size of a 12-gram sample of carbon. Alternate conceptions regarding heat and temperature have been reported as reviewed by Erickson and Tiberghien (30). In question 16, 35% of the teachers and 51% of the students believe that equal masses of water and alcohol receive the same amount of heat as they warm from 25 °C to


•


1247


50 °C. Similar to the student responses, the full range of reasons was selected by teachers in item 17 to explain the warming behavior of the liquids, indicating widespread confusion between heat and temperature. In item 20 approximately 30% of the teachers do not understand the concentration behavior of a saturated solution, stating that as water evaporates, the concentration of salt in solution goes up. When asked for a reason in question 21, teachers primarily responded that there was the same amount of salt in less water. Similar misunderstanding was reported by 64% of students in item 20 and 40% in item 21. More interesting is the comparison of teacher and student responses in items 10, 11, and 22. Both teachers and students averaged less than 50% correct responses for all three items. In question 10, 37% of teachers, compared to 36% of students, answered correctly that the water level would remain the same as ice melts in a mixture of ice and water. The range of responses given as reasons in item 11 indicate some confusion in the explanation of this behavior but generally reflect previously reported alternate conceptions in translating between macroscopic and microscopic properties of molecules, such as molecules of solids are larger than those of liquid and gas, and that molecules themselves expand when heated (31). On item 22, 24% of the teachers and 19% of students could distinguish the properties of a macroscopic sample of sulfur from that of a single atom. An average of 74% of the teachers and 81% of the students indicated that a single atom of sulfur was a brittle, crystalline solid; had a melting point of 113 °C; and/or had a density of 2.1 g/cm3.

Contextual Comparison The collected demographic data allowed for the comparison of two categories of teachers—teachers with a degree and/or secondary single subject teaching credential in chemistry (in-discipline) and teachers with a degree and/or secondary single subject teaching credential in a non-chemistry science (out-of-discipline). While 45 teachers completed the CCI, only 33 of the teachers completed enough of the demographics survey to warrant their placement in either the indiscipline or out-of-discipline category. Of these 33 teachers, 11 teachers were in-discipline with a mean score of 87.2%, 19.2 of 22 (SD = 2.4). The remaining 22 were out-of-discipline with a mean score of 72.2%, 15.9 of 22 (SD = 3.9). The t-test results ( p < 0.003) indicate statistically significant differences in scores between the two groups of teachers.

Qualitative Interpretations Teachers have often not been exposed to situations that challenge the validity of their constructed ideas, and thus they may be unaware of their own misconceptions, much less see a need to provide such meaningful situations to their students. After the administration of the CCI, a teacher with 11 years of experience in teaching physical and life sciences and a former member of a reform-based physical science curriculum writing team, but in the first year of teaching both introductory and advanced placement (AP) chemistry wrote to the test administrator saying [You] provided us with valuable information. Even though that very tricky quiz frustrated me when I got it back, I learned a lot from it!

1248


•

The teacher admitted to being aware of the existence of students’ alternate science conceptions from previous work on a reform-based curriculum writing team, but did not realize her own incorrect ideas about chemistry until taking the CCI. In a later interview, this same teacher commented: I just don’t have the conceptual framework of chemistry enough at this point… I feel I am just building the kind of content knowledge that I need. It’s not even really the content knowledge, I mean I know chemistry, but knowing and teaching are two different things.

Alternate conceptions of teachers may in fact be directly transmitted to students during content instruction. This possibility emerged during the professional development event when teachers were provided the opportunity to ask questions pertaining to the content of the CCI. At least nine teachers verbally requested clarification of the answer for item 22. Specifically, they sought an explanation for why a single atom of sulfur does not have the following properties: a brittle, crystalline solid; a melting point of 113 oC; and/or a density of 2.1 grams per cubic centimeter. The test administrator facilitated a brief discussion in which the properties of particles (i.e., bonding, polarity, and intermolecular forces of attraction) were distinguished from the resulting properties of bulk matter (i.e., crystalline structure, melting point, density). Following the discussion a chemistry teacher of 9 years and a member of the local chemistry curriculum and assessment-writing teams stated, “But that’s not what we teach. We teach that the atom is the smallest part of the element that has all the same [physical and chemical] properties of the element.” Such a statement suggests a common confusion—between the term element, which has both macroscopic and microscopic connotations, in relation to the atom, which has a microscopic connotation only—being directly transferred to students. A lack of formal instruction, experience, or comfort teaching conceptual chemistry may result in a teacher teaching the content superficially, or not at all, leading to limited opportunities in which both teacher and students can test the validity of their constructed ideas. For example, in a discussion with a teacher who had 20 years of experience in teaching high school chemistry, the issue of the problematic nature of teaching for conceptual understanding was addressed; this teacher holds a teaching credential in life science with a supplemental authorization in chemistry. The units that I seem to have, or the kids seem to have, some success with are the quantitative ones, because those are the ones I tend to gravitate towards. I like that way of presenting things. The ones I have, the kids have, the most difficulty with, the ones where they have to memorize a bunch of concepts. The descriptive part of chemistry is the most difficult part, because again, there’s a lot of intuitiveness that has to go on, the relationships between properties or describing properties of elements that they have to remember and make some sort of a response based upon that knowledge…and the ones that are more difficult areas, that I know will cause problems, I may gloss over a little bit more and not go into the depth or detail that would be required to do justice.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


Several important points emerge from this passage. First, the teacher does not separate his own learning and teaching preferences from that of his students. Second, the teacher believes he is unsuccessful in teaching conceptual chemistry but successful in teaching algorithmic and procedural chemistry, hence the emphasis of quantitative topics in his instruction. Third, while we cannot pinpoint the underlying source of these beliefs, the teacher defines descriptive chemistry as “the most difficult part” and consisting primarily of memorization tasks. Such statements may reflect a lack of conceptual understanding on the part of the teacher, or at the very least, a lack of sufficient pedagogical content knowledge that would allow the teacher to effectively teach for conceptual understanding. Discussion As the three main objectives for this study we endeavored to: • Present the use of an existing chemistry conceptual inventory to assess the extent of teachers’ alternate conceptions about some basic concepts to inform professional development or formal teacher education situations • Investigate a parallel between teacher and student alternate conceptions in chemistry • Explore potential contextual factors for teachers’ conceptions of chemistry

Assessing Teachers’ Alternate Conceptions A large body of research on the identification of alternate conceptions has been conducted, as reviewed by Griffiths (15), Andersson (32), Gabel and Bunce (33), Krajcik (34), Nakhleh (35), Stavy (36), Wandersee, Mintzes, and Novak (37) and Taber (38, 39). School districts and institutes of higher learning that provide chemistry content support to teachers could benefit from an instrument that quickly diagnoses alternate conceptions of their teachers in order to inform both professional development and formal education experiences for their teachers. We have demonstrated that the CCI may be used as one such tool. While the instrument was developed by university faculty to examine college-level conceptions, the inventory items align with secondary state and national standards and their underlying understandings, of which teachers are expected to demonstrate mastery and are held accountable for teaching to students in their classrooms. The most striking trend that emerged in the teacher sample set, and also mirrored by Mulford and Robinson’s student population (24), are incorrect ideas about fundamental concepts of chemistry—structure and properties of matter, chemical reactions, and interactions of energy and matter— most of which involve relating macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic understandings of chemistry. Parallels between Teachers’ and Students’ Alternate Conceptions From the constructivist perspective of learning, alternate conceptions are knowledge that students have constructed to explain the world around them and are not transmitted from instructor to learner (40, 41). So how then do we interpret www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

data that clearly show a parallel between teacher and student alternate conceptions, specifically that teachers responded correctly at or below the sample average on 10 of the 12 items in which the students responded at or below the sample average? The parallel does not necessarily imply causality; however, we propose possible explanations for the parallel between teacher and student scores and diagnosed alternate conceptions, which are also supported by qualitative interpretations presented above: 1. Alternate conceptions of teachers have not been exposed to situations that challenge the validity of or change the teachers constructed ideas, thus teachers may be unaware of their own misconceptions much less see a need to provide similarly meaningful situations to their students. 2. Alternate conceptions of teachers may in fact be directly transmitted to students during content instruction. 3. A lack of formal instruction, experience, and comfort with conceptual chemistry results in teachers teaching content superficially or not at all, leading to limited opportunities in which both teacher and students can test the validity of their constructed ideas that will persist until such a time.

Regardless of the cause, the result appears to be a cycle that includes teachers’ preparation in the content area, teachers’ instructional practice, and students’ learning.

Contextual Factors for Teachers’ Conceptions We compared the CCI scores of two categories of teachers—teachers with a degree and/or secondary single subject teaching credential in chemistry (in-discipline) and teachers with a degree and/or secondary single subject teaching credential in a non-chemistry science (out-of-discipline). As reported in the Results section, the teachers holding degree majors and/or single subject credentials in chemistry demonstrated fewer alternate conceptions than the out-of-discipline teachers. These data are consistent with earlier studies in which out-of-discipline teachers demonstrated a more limited and fragmented understanding of the subject matter (6, 9,10). While other contextual factors may exist that contribute to teachers’ conceptual understanding, arguments persist regarding the significance of content preparation with respect to teacher quality (42). Implications and Further Study To address the issues discussed in this report, the large urban district in question has partnered with university faculty to prepare out-of-discipline chemistry teachers to become “highly qualified” as defined in California’s interpretation of the No Child Left Behind legislation. The intervention consists of a four-semester chemistry course sequence designed specifically for out-of-discipline chemistry teachers and informed by the CCI. The focus is on improving teacher chemistry content knowledge in order to pass the California Subject Examination for Teachers, although it also emphasizes improving teachers’ conceptual understanding to better prepare them to teach a reform-based conceptual chemistry curriculum for all 10th grade students. A continuation of this research will include measuring conceptual growth of these


•


1249


out-of-discipline chemistry teachers and resulting improvements in teaching during and after participation in the customized chemistry course. A focus point of this work will include investigating the use of computer-based visualization in enhancing teachers’ conceptual understanding of the microscopic and symbolic representations of chemistry (43–48). Note 1. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act as Reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is education reform legislation at the national level in the U.S. commonly referred to as No Child Left Behind. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/ legislation.html (accessed May 2005).

Literature Cited 1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Benchmarks for Science Literacy; Oxford University Press: New York, 1993. 2. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. 3. National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000. 4. Ingersoll, R. M. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2001, 38, 499–534. 5. Ingersoll, R. M. Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality. NCES Report 96-040, U.S. Department of Education (Office of Educational Research and Improvement): Washington, DC, 1996. 6. Gess-Newsome, J. In Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Gess-Newsome, J., Lederman, N. G., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 51–94. 7. Talbert, J. E.; McLaughlin, M. W.; Rowan, B. Teachers College Rec. 1993, 95, 45–68. 8. Brookhart, S. M.; Freeman, D. J. Rev. Educ. Res. 1992, 62, 37–60. 9. Brickhouse, N.W.; Bodner, G. M. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 471–485. 10. Gess-Newsome, J.; Lederman, N. G. Sci. Educ. 1993, 77, 25– 45. 11. Gabel, D. L. In International Handbook of Science Education; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, 1998; pp 233–248. 12. Johnstone, A. H.; Letton, K. M. Educ. Chem. 1993, 28, 81– 83. 13. Ben-Zvi, R.; Eylon, B.; Silberstein, J. Educ. Chem. 1987, 24, 117–120. 14. Gabel, D. L.; Samuel, K. V.; Hunn, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 695–697. 15. Griffiths, A. K.; Preston, K. R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 611–628. 16. Hoffmann, R.; Laszlo, R. Ang. Chem. 1991, 30, 1–16. 17. Kozma, R. B.; Chin, E.; Russell, J.; Marx, N. J. Learning Sciences 2000, 9, 105-143. 18. Kozma, R.B.; Russell, J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 949-968. 19. Kieg, P. F.; Rubba, P. A. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1993, 30, 883-903. 20. Gabel, D. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 193–197. 21. Gabel, D. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 548–554. 22. Van Driel, J. H.; de Jong, O.; Verloop, N. Sci. Educ. 2002, 86, 572–590. 23. Robinson, W. R.; Nurrenbern, S. C. Conceptual Questions (CQs) and Chemical Concepts Inventory. http://jce.divched.org/

1250


•

JCEDLib/QBank/index.html (accessed May 2005). 24. Mulford, D. R.; Robinson, W. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 739–744. 25. California School Boards Association, CSBA Advisory. http:// www.csba.org/PA/ctc_advisory.pdf (accessed May 2005). 26. Lewis E. L.; Linn, M. C. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31, 657– 677. 27. Boo, H. K. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1998, 35, 569–581. 28. Teichert, M. A.; Stacy, A. M. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39, 464– 496. 29. Thomas, P. L.; Schwenz, R. W. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1998, 35, 1151–1160. 30. Erickson, G.; Tiberghien, A. In Children’s Ideas in Science; Driver, R., Guesne, E., Tiberghien, A., Eds.; Open University Press: Milton Keyens, UK, 2002; pp 52–84. 31. Driver, R.; Squires, A.; Rushworth, P.; Wood-Robinson, V. Making Sense of Secondary Science: Research into Children’s Ideas; Routledge-Falmer: London, 2001; pp 73–103 32. Andersson, B. Stud. Sci. Ed. 1990, 18, 53–85. 33. Gabel, D. L.; Bunce, D. M. In Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning; Gabel, D., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, 1994; pp 301–326. 34. Krajcik, J. S. The Psychology of Learning Science; Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., Britton, B. K., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1991; pp 117–147. 35. Nakhleh, M. B. J. Chem Educ. 1992, 69, 191–196. 36. Stavy, R. In Learning Science in the Schools: Research Informing Practice; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1995; pp 131– 154. 37. Wandersee, J. H.; Mintzes, J. J.; Novak, J. D. In Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning; Gabel, D., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, 1994; pp 177–210. 38. Taber, K. Chemical Misconceptions: Prevention, Diagnosis, and Cure: Classroom Resources; Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, England, 2002. 39. Taber, K. Chemical Misconceptions: Prevention, Diagnosis, and Cure: Classroom Resources, Part 2; Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, England, 2002. 40. National Research Council. How People Learn; Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Eds.; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000; pp 10–12. 41. Driver, R.; Guesne, E.; Tiberghien, A. In Children’s Ideas in Science; Driver, R., Guesne, E., Tiberghien, A., Eds.; Open University Press: Milton Keyens, UK, 2002; pp 1–9. 42. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future: Washington DC, 2003. 43. Barnea, N.; Dori, Y. J. J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 1999, 8, 257–271. 44. Balaban, A. J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 1999, 8, 251–256. 45. Wu, H-K.; Krajcik, J.; Soloway, E. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2001, 38, 821–842. 46. Crouch, D. R.; Holden, M. S.; Samet, C. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 916–917. 47. Beckwith, E. K.; Nelson, C. Learning Leading Tech. 1998, 25, 17–19. 48. Stieff, M.; Wilensky, U. ChemLogo: An Emergent Modeling Environment for Teaching and Learning Chemistry. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 2002 (Seattle, WA), B. Stevens and R. Stevens, Eds.; Erlbaum: Mawah, NJ, 2002.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Assessing Teachers' Conceptions with the Chemistry Concepts

Recommend Documents