An Inventory for Alternate Conceptions among First-Semester General

Research: Science and Education edited by

Chemical Education Research

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

An Inventory for Alternate Conceptions among First-Semester General Chemistry Students

W

Douglas R. Mulford Natural Science Division, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA 90263 William R. Robinson* Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907; [email protected]

During the last three decades a large body of research has described concepts held by science students at different levels. A considerable amount of this research shows that relatively young children develop intuitive ideas and beliefs about natural phenomena. As they learn more about the natural world they develop new or revised concepts based on their interpretation of this new information from the viewpoint of their existing ideas and beliefs. Their concepts that are not consistent with the consensus of the scientific community are called alternate conceptions. Students in introductory chemistry courses exhibit an extensive array these alternate conceptions of chemical behavior. Some are on the right track but are incomplete and others are simply wrong. Reviews of common alternate conceptions of chemistry concepts and chemical behavior (1–7 ) and an extensive bibliography (8) are available. Alternate conceptions play a larger role in learning chemistry than simply producing inadequate explanations to questions. Students either consciously or subconsciously construct their concepts as explanations for the behavior, properties, or theories they experience. They believe most of these explanations are correct because these explanations make sense in terms of their understanding of the behavior of the world around them. Consequently, if students encounter new information that contradicts their alternate conceptions it may be difficult for them to accept the new information because it seems wrong. The anomalies do not fit their expectations. Under these conditions the new information may suffer one of the educationally nonproductive fates described by Chinn and Brewer (9) and may be discounted in one of a number of ways. It may be ignored, rejected, disbelieved, deemed irrelevant to the current issue, held for consideration at a later time, reinterpreted in light of the student’s current theories, or accepted with only minor changes in the student’s concept. Occasionally anomalous information could be accepted and the alternate conception revised. If anomalous new information is presented in a learning situation where the student is rewarded (with grades) for remembering it, the information may be memorized in order to earn the reward, but it is likely to be quickly forgotten because it does not make sense (10, 11). We were interested in developing an instrument to measure the extent of entering students’ alternate conceptions about topics found in the first semester of many traditional general chemistry courses. We were also interested in changes in alternate conceptions after one semester in such a course.

Consequently, we developed the Chemistry Concepts Inventory (CCI), a multiple-choice inventory that can sample the extent of alternate conceptions about these topics. The development of the instrument and the results of its application before and after a first-semester course are reported here. Experimental Development Our inventory was developed by a process analogous to that described by Treagust (12). We developed a content list covering the material found in a typical first-semester college chemistry course based on a review of representative college chemistry textbooks, journal articles (13, 14 ), and a recent American Chemical Society General Chemistry Examination (15). A review of the alternate-conceptions literature produced studies dealing with the following topics that are commonly covered in a first-semester general chemistry course: the particulate nature of matter (16–19); properties of atoms (18, 20); bonding (21, 22); gases (23, 24); liquids and solutions (25–27 ); conservation of mass and atoms (23–30); symbols, equations, and stoichiometry (16, 24, 31, 32); chemical reactions (33–35); heat and temperature (27); phase changes (25, 28, 36 ); and macroscopic versus atomic and molecular properties (19, 25, 37 ). Our pilot version of the inventory consisted of 18 freeresponse questions covering these topics. Seven of the 18 questions were based directly on probing questions from the research literature. The remaining 11 were written by us and based on other alternate conceptions reported in the literature. Many of the studies we have cited involve K–12 students. We used an open-ended format for our pilot so the distractors used in the final multiple-choice version of the CCI would reflect conceptions determined from a sample at the same level as the students to be studied. The final 22-question CCI was developed from responses to the pilot inventory. A modified version of the inventory for classroom use can be found on the Conceptual Question and Challenge Problems Web site, a feature of JCE Online (38). Eighteen chemistry graduate students completed the final version of the inventory to check for clarity and length. The graduate students required 15 to 25 minutes to complete the examination; most were able to correctly answer all questions (average = 20.5/22). Four experienced chemical education researchers checked the final inventory for level and content. They believe that all of the questions are appropriate for students in a general chemistry program.

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 6 June 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education

739

Research: Science and Education

The CCI was administered as a 30-minute pretest at a Midwestern land-grant university during the first laboratory period of a two-semester general chemistry course for science and engineering majors. Only responses from the 1418 entering freshmen were used in our analysis in order to remove students repeating the course from the sample. All students in the course must be qualified for concurrent enrollment in calculus and must have had at least one year of high school chemistry. They averaged 1.41 years of high school chemistry. The inventory was then administered at the beginning of the first laboratory period of the following semester as a 30minute posttest in the second course in the sequence. Again, students repeating the course were eliminated, leaving 1553 sets of responses. The number of students involved in the second administration was larger because one division of the course was not tested during the first semester. The course between the pretest and posttest covered atoms, molecules, and ions; chemical reactions and equations; chemical stoichiometry; the gaseous state; thermochemistry; structure of the atom; periodic properties; chemical bonding; molecular geometry; solids and liquids; and a brief survey of the chemistry of metals and nonmetals. Chang’s text (39) was used for reference with coverage of portions of chapters 1–11, 21, and 22. Multiple-choice exams included numerical problems and recall questions, but no pictorial or conceptual questions. The concurrent laboratory work involved stoichiometry, gas laws, standardization of solutions, titration, heats of reaction, crystal-structure modeling, and synthesis. Neither author was involved in teaching the course and the instructors were unaware of students’ scores on the CCI. No particular attempt was made by instructors to address alternate conceptions among the students. Eight volunteers (with scores ranging from 6 to 12 on the CCI) from three laboratory sections were interviewed during the semester. The interviews showed that these students interpreted the questions on the CCI as we intended. Overall Results The scores on the pretest of 1418 entering students averaged 45.5%, 10.0 out of 22 (SD = 3.86). Individual scores ranged from 1 to 22. The posttest average of 1553 students was 50.5%, 11.1 of 22 (SD = 4.15). For the remainder of this discussion we focus on the results of 928 entering students who included their student identification number with their answers for both tests because this enabled us to compare their pretest and posttest performances. The pretest performance of this group was consistent with that of the larger group. These 928 students averaged 10.3 (SD = 3.82) on the pretest with a Chronbach α of .704 and 11.2 (SD = 4.09) on the posttest with a Chronbach α of .716. Chronbach’s α (40) estimates how consistently individuals respond to the items in an examination by measuring the correlation between responses obtained at the same time. A value of .7 or larger is generally accepted as satisfactory and suggests that students are not responding randomly. The change in scores of 95% of these students fell between a decrease of 5 points and an increase of 5 points. A total of 380 students increased their scores by 2 or more points, and the scores of 172 students decreased by 2 or more points. The average gain was 0.94 points (SD = 2.94). This average 740

gain of about 5% is statistically significant ( p < .001). Our results are consistent with those for the Conceptual General Chemistry Examination produced by the ACS DivCHED Examinations Institute (41). This examination covers a complete general chemistry course and student scores average 55%, 33 out of 60, with a standard deviation of 10.7 (42). The ACS exam is similar to the CCI in that it is a nonmathematical examination covering basic chemistry concepts; however, the questions and distractors do not focus on alternate conceptions reported in the literature. Results for Individual Questions In the following discussion, “pre” following a percentage refers to the percentage of students selecting a response on the pretest; “post” indicates the percentage selecting a response on the posttest. The percentages are determined from the answer sheets of the 928 students who provided their student identification number on both administrations of the CCI. Appendix AW reports the number of students choosing each response for both the pretest and posttest. Only questions 7 and 8 were answered correctly by about 90% of the students on both tests; 89% (pre) and 91% (post) answered both questions correctly. Question 7 asked (true or false) if matter is destroyed as a match burns. The appropriate choice of reason in question 8 was “The atoms are not destroyed, they are only rearranged.” In retrospect, and in view of the results from questions 18 and 19, we believe questions 7 and 8 may prompt simple recall and these questions may not be addressing a conceptual issue. For the remaining 20 questions the percentage of correct responses on the pretest and posttest ranged from 11% to 78%. Four items had correct responses in the 65–80% range. Question 3, which asked the source of the sweat on the outside of a glass of cold milk, was answered correctly by 67% (pre) and 72% (post) of students who attributed the sweat to condensation. One incorrect reason, “The coldness causes oxygen and hydrogen from the air to combine on the glass forming water”, was selected by 25% (pre) and 18% (post). This choice is consistent with the alternate conception that water dissociates to hydrogen and oxygen when it evaporates (see below). Question 4, which asked the weight of a solution formed by adding 1 pound of salt to 20 pounds of water, was answered correctly by 73% (pre) and 75% (post), although 25% of the students on both the pretest and posttest indicated that the solution would weigh less than 21 pounds. The appropriate answer to question 15, a particulate question about the dilution of a solution of sugar, was selected by 76% (pre) and 78% (post). Questions 12 and 13, which were paired, asked about the change in weight of a sealed tube containing 1 gram of solid iodine as the tube is heated and the iodine vaporized. Sixty-eight percent (pre) and 73% (post) of students indicated the weight would be the same, while 29% (pre) and 24% (post) indicated that the weight would be less. Seventy-one percent (pre) and 75% (post) selected “Mass is conserved” as the reason for their answer; 26% (pre) and 20% (post) indicated that a gas weighs less than a solid or is less dense than a solid. Over 70% of students indicated partially correct concepts on question 1, which asks about conservation of mass, molecules, and atoms during a chemical reaction. Although

Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 6 June 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu


only 36% (pre) and 30% (post) of the students indicated that both the number of atoms and the total mass are conserved in a chemical reaction, 79% (pre) and 78% (post) thought the number of atoms was conserved (although some indicated incorrect ideas about other aspects of the question) and 76% (pre) and 78% (post) thought that mass was conserved (again, some had incorrect ideas about other aspects). The common mistake was to assume that the total number of molecules is also conserved in a chemical reaction (33%, pre, and 38%, post). With one exception, the remaining questions had correct response rates of 50% or less. The exception involved the paired questions 18 and 19, which concern a rusting iron nail. Thirty six percent (30%, post) of students indicated that the rust from a completely rusted iron nail would weigh less than the nail it came from, 10% (12%, post) said the weight would be the same, and only 50% (54%, post) responded that the rust would weigh more. Interestingly, when asked for the reason for their answer, 61% (pre) and 66% (post) of all students chose “Rust contains iron and oxygen”, suggesting that more students know the composition of rust than understand the mass relationships involved in its formation. Only 40% (47%, post) of respondents identified the contents of the bubbles in boiling water as water vapor (question 2). The most common response (43%, pre, and 39%, post) was hydrogen and oxygen gas, followed by oxygen gas and air. The results for question 2 are consistent with those for questions 4 and 6. Only 39% (45%, post) chose widely separated water molecules; 37% (41%, post) selected response a, b, or d, which represent, respectively, H2 and O2 molecules, a mixture of H2O molecules, H atoms, and O atoms, or H and O atoms. Twenty four percent (14%, post) chose response c with no particles at all.

Question 6. The circle on the left shows a magnified view of a very small portion of liquid water in a closed container. What would the magnified view show after the water evaporates?

correct answer, d. When we consider the number of students who selected responses a, c, and e, we see that 65% (61%, post) chose responses that do not conserve atoms. Combining responses a, b, and e indicates that 74% (pre) appear not to understand the difference between the coefficient “2” and the subscript “3” in 2SO3. There was a significant improvement over the course of the semester, as only 57% of students selected response a, c, or e on the posttest. Fourteen percent (7%, post) chose a representation for S2O3 and 60% (50%, post) chose a representation for S2O6. Question 5. The larger diagram at the top represents a mixture of S atoms and O2 molecules in a closed container. Which diagram (a–e) shows the results after the mixture reacts as completely as possible according to the equation 2S + 3O2 → 2SO3 ?

When asked about the change in water level as the ice melts in a mixture of ice and water, only 36% (44%, post) indicated that it would stay the same (question 10). The reasons for this behavior (question 11) are not overly informative, although 20% (18%, post) of our students indicated that the molecules in liquid water are larger than the molecules in ice (distractors c and e) and another 22% (19%, post) believed water is more dense in its solid form than in the liquid state. Students also have problems with the microscopic nature of atoms. Only 25% (32%, post) answered question 14 in a way that suggested they had an appropriate idea of the size of a carbon atom and or the size of a 12-gram sample of carbon. Most students selected the familiar Avogadro number. Question 14: What is the approximate number of carbon atoms it would take placed next to each other to make a line that would cross this dot—ⴢ ? (a) 4

Responses to question 5 suggest that our students came to us with a very poor understanding of chemical formulas and equations. Only 11% (pre) and 20% (post) selected the

(b) 200

(c) 30,000,000

(d) 6.02 × 1023

Only 19% (25%, post) could distinguish the properties of a macroscopic sample of sulfur from that of a single atom (question 22); 81% (75%, post) 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 grams per cubic centimeter. These responses, when combined with the correct response on question 8 (“The atoms are not destroyed, they are only rearranged”), chosen by about 90% of students on both tests, serves as a strong reminder that many students can use chemical terms without understanding the concepts they are intended to convey.


741


Question 22. Following is a list of properties of a sample of solid sulfur: i. Brittle, crystalline solid. ii. Melting point of 113 °C. iii. Density of 2.1 g/cm3. iv. Combines with oxygen to form sulfur dioxide. Which, if any, of these properties would be the same for one single atom of sulfur obtained from the sample? a. b. c. d. e.

i and ii only. iii and iv only. iv only. All of these properties would be the same. None of these properties would be the same.

Understanding of the energetics of chemical bonding is a problem. The responses for question 9 indicate that 72% (70%, post) of our sample believe that breaking of H–H and O–O bonds releases energy. Half of our students confuse heat and temperature: 51% (46%, post) of students believe that equal masses of water and alcohol receive the same amount of heat as they warm from 25 to 50 °C (question 16). The range of reasons selected for question 17 to explain the behavior observed as water and alcohol are warmed indicates widespread confusion about the explanation for the behavior We see that students do not understand the concentration behavior of a saturated solution (question 20). Only 32% (34%, post) indicate that the concentration of a saturated solution stays the same as water evaporates: 64% (61%, post) believe the concentration increases; 3% (4%, post), that it decreases. When asked for a reason, 40% (48%, post) indicated that there was the same amount of salt in less water and 30% (18%, post) indicated that salt does not evaporate and is left in solution. Only 25% (26%, post) indicated that more solid salt forms. The low improvement on this question probably reflects the fact that the behavior of solutions was not covered during the semester. Question 20. Salt is added to water and the mixture is stirred until no more salt dissolves. The salt that does not dissolve is allowed to settle out. What happens to the concentration of salt in solution if water evaporates until the volume of the solution is half the original volume? (Assume temperature remains constant.)

The concentration (a) increases (b) decreases (c) stays the same Question 21. What is the reason for your answer? (a) There is the same amount of salt in less water. (b) More solid salt forms. (c) Salt does not evaporate and is left in solution. (d) There is less water.

742

Discussion The objective of this report is threefold: to present an inventory that faculty can use to judge for themselves the extent of their students’ confusion about some basic concepts, to demonstrate that many students come to general chemistry with alternate conceptions described in the chemical and science education literature (15–36 ), and to show that a traditional general chemistry course results in only modest improvements in understanding of these basic concepts. The incorrect concepts include inappropriate ideas about atoms and molecules, microscopic behavior, heat and temperature, chemical formulas, gases, and other qualitative concepts. These results have been presented at ACS meetings and at seminars in several chemistry departments. Some faculty ascribe the inappropriate ideas suggested by the results to the format of the questions. One question in particular always arises: Don’t students have difficulty understanding the unfamiliar pictorial representations used in the particulate questions and isn’t that the reason for their poor performance? We believe this is not a problem for two reasons. First, the pictorial representations used in the distractors and answers were generated from representations produced by students themselves. Second, during our interviews with students there were no indications that any of them had trouble understanding the representations. In interviews regarding question 5, for example, the five students who specifically mentioned the representation clearly understood it. For example, one student responded “…so the S atoms are square and the O2 molecules are round.” The manner in which the other students answered the question suggested that they also understood the representations. Students also appear to understand the representations in question 6, which shows water, oxygen, and hydrogen molecules and oxygen and hydrogen atoms. One student drew his answer before looking at the possible responses. As he drew small circles the size of the oxygen atoms in the representation and small dots he said “the oxygen is gonna be together so draw each circle with another circle and then draw little dots for the hydrogen.…H2…diatomic so I guess I would see those [the little dots] together.” Although some faculty express disbelief at the extent of inappropriate ideas suggested by our findings, undergraduate students, many graduate students, and some younger faculty in an audience often nod in agreement with our findings. It may be that those of us who are older have worked our way through these alternate conceptions and forgotten that we also held some of them. A similar lack of recall of alternate conceptions related to classical mechanics was noted by Hestenes, Wells, and Swackhamer (43) in the report of their Force Concepts Inventory. They note the paradoxical fact that “few physicists can recall having ever believed, let alone having overcome, any of the [physics] misconceptions, though research has established unequivocally that everyone has them before learning physics.” If you fall into the group that may have forgotten your alternate conceptions or if you are curious about the extent of alternate conceptions among your students, we urge you to try the CCI with your classes. Knowing the nature and extent of students’ alternate conceptions is by itself not enough to improve the effectiveness of instruction. Alternate conceptions are knowledge that students



have constructed to explain the world around them. Such knowledge (or understanding) is not transmitted from instructor to learner. Rather, it is actively built by learners (44), and simply telling students that their alternate conceptions are wrong is unlikely to have a lasting effect (10, 11). Much of the knowledge that we humans build is a compendium of concepts and actions we have found to be successful, given the purposes that we have in mind. We extend and modify our knowledge by comparing and integrating it with new stimuli (45). Checking how our knowledge works is key to checking its validity. Our knowledge seems valid if it produces acceptable results. On the other hand, we deem knowledge to be invalid if it does not produce such results. If we are never in a situation where our knowledge fails us, we have no need to revise it. Thus in order to change their alternate conceptions students need to be exposed to discrepant events—that is, situations where their incorrect knowledge does not work. Then they should be assisted in exploring the reasons why it does not work. Techniques that overtly confront alternate conceptions or act as discrepant events include the use of multiple representations, discussion of demonstrations, group discussions, cooperative learning, use of concept maps or V-diagrams, and guided inquiry. Gabel (46 ), Weaver (47), and Johnstone (48) discuss techniques that can prove useful. The Web site of The National Association for Research in Science Teaching contains short reviews in the series NARST Research Matters—to the Science Teacher: The reviews by Kyle and Shymansky (49), Novak (50), and Ulerick (51) could be helpful. In addition, there are books like Teaching Science for Understanding: a Human Constructivist View (52) and Science Teaching Reconsidered: a Handbook (53). Finally, Herron’s book (54) is a compendium of ideas for helping students generate appropriate understanding of chemistry concepts. In addition to teaching concepts, most chemistry courses introduce students to solving mathematical and other types of problems. Both Gabel and Bunce (4 ) and Herron (54) cite research literature that shows again and again that if students are having trouble solving problems the likely cause is their lack of conceptual understanding. As Herron emphasizes, “If students are having trouble solving problems, the first thing to check is their understanding of the concepts in the problem” and their level of understanding should extend beyond the simple ability to use words to describe the concept (54, p 103). Thus, addressing students’ alternate conceptions can do more than improve their understanding of concepts, it can also improve their problem-solving ability. W

Supplemental Material

The complete results of the inventory are available in this issue of JCE Online. Literature Cited 1. Nakhleh, M. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 191–196. 2. Bowen, C. W.; Bunce, D. M. Chem. Educator [Online] 1997, 2(2): DOI 10.1007/s00897970118a. 3. Stavy, R. Learning Science in the Schools: Research Informing Practice; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1995; pp 131–154.

4. 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. 5. Wandersee, J. H.; Mintzes, J. J.; Novak, J. D. In Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning; op. cit.; pp 177–210. 6. Stavy, R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1991, 28, 305–313. 7. 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. 8. Pfundt, H.; Duit, R. Bibliography: Students’ Alternative Frameworks and Science Education; University of Kiel Institute for Science Education: Kiel, Germany, 2000. 9. Chinn, C. A.; Brewer, W. F. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1998, 35, 623–654. 10. Duit, R. In The Psychology of Learning Science; op. cit.; pp 65–85. 11. How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice; Donovan, M. S.; Bransford, J. D.; Pelligrino, J. W., Eds.; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999; http://www.nap.edu/catalog/ 9457.html (accessed Feb 2002). 12. Treagust, D. F. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1988, 10, 159–169. 13. Taft, H. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 241–247. 14. Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 182–186. 15. General Chemistry Examination; ACS DivCHED Exams Institute: Clemson, SC, 1995. 16. Lythcott, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 248–252. 17. Ebenezer, J. V.; Erickson, G. L. Sci. Educ. 1996, 80, 181–201. 18. Gabel, D. L.; Samuel, K. V.; Hunn, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 695–697. 19. Smith, K. J.; Metz, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 233–235. 20. Griffiths, A. K.; Preston, K. R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 611–628. 21. Novick, S.; Nussbaum, J. Sci. Educ. 1978, 62, 273–281. 22. Peterson, R. F.; Treagust, D. F.; Garnett, P. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1989, 26, 301–314. 23. Furio Mas, C. J.; Perez, J. H.; Harris, H. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 63, 616–618. 24. Nurrenbern, S. C.; Pickering, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 508–510. 25. Lee, O.; Eichinger, D. C.; Anderson, C. W.; Berkheimer, G. D.; Blakeslee, T. D. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1993, 30, 249–270. 26. Ebenezer, J. V.; Gaskell, P. J. Sci. Educ. 1995, 79, 1–17. 27. Abraham, M. R.; Grzybowski, E. B.; Renner, L. W.; Marek, E. A. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 105–120. 28. Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 385–388. 29. BouJaoude, S. B. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 687–699. 30. Basili, P. A.; Sanford, J. P. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1991, 28, 293–304. 31. Yarroch, W. L. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1985, 22, 449–459. 32. Huddle, P. A.; Pillay, A. E. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1996, 33, 65–79. 33. Andersson, B. Sci. Educ. 1986, 70, 549–563. 34. Meheut, M.; Saltiel, E.; Tiberghien, A. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1985, 7, 83–93. 35. Donnelly, J. F.; Welford, A. G. Educ. Chem. 1988, 25, 7–10. 36. Osborne R. J.; Cosgrove, M. M. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1983, 20, 825–838. 37. Ben-Zvi, R.; Eylon, B. S.; Silberstein, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 64–66. 38. Robinson, W. R.; Nurrenbern, S. C. Conceptual Questions (CQs) and Chemical Concepts Inventory; http://JchemEd. c h e m . w i s c . e d u / J C E W W W / Fe a t u re s / C Q a n d C h P / CQ s / ConceptsInventory/CCIIntro.html (accessed Feb 2002). 39. Chang, R. Chemistry, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1994.


743

Research: Science and Education 40. Miller, M. B. Structural Equation Modeling 1995, 2, 255–273. 41. General Chemistry Examination (Conceptual), ACS DivCHED Examination Institute: Clemson, SC, 1996. 42. Norms—General Chemistry (Conceptual) Exam Form 1996; ACS DivCHED Examination Institute: Clemson, SC; http://tigerched. clemson.edu/exams/norms/GC96C.html (accessed Feb 2002). 43. Hestenes, D; Wells, M.; Swackhamer, G. Phys.Teach. 1992, 30, 141–158. 44. von Glasersfeld, E. Synthese 1989, 80, 121–140. 45. von Glasersfeld, E. In Constructivism in Education; Steffe, L. P.; Gale, J, Eds.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1995; pp 3–15. 46. Gabel, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 548–554. 47. Weaver, G. C. Sci. Educ. 1998, 82, 455–472. 48. Johnstone, A. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 262–268. 49. Kyle, W. C.; Shymansky, J. A. Enhancing Learning through Conceptual Change Teaching, National Association of Research in Science Teaching, 1989; http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/

744

research/research.htm (accessed Feb 2002). 50. Novak, J. D. Metacognitive Strategies to Help Students Learning How to Learn; National Association of Research in Science Teaching, 1998; http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/research/ research.htm (accessed Feb 2002). 51. Ulerick, S. Using Textbooks for Meaningful Learning in Science; National Association of Research in Science Teaching; http://www. educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/research/research.htm (accessed Feb 2002). 52. Teaching Science for Understanding: a Human Constructivist View; Mintzes, J. J.; Wandersee, J. H.; Novak J. D., Eds.; Academic: San Diego, 1998. 53. Science Teaching Reconsidered: a Handbook; Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, National Research Council; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1997; online, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5287.html (accessed Feb 2002). 54. Herron, J. D. The Chemistry Classroom; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1996; pp 103–104.


An Inventory for Alternate Conceptions among First-Semester General

Recommend Documents