Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Like They Are Everyday Substances, You Like See Them, Hold Them, Use Them Every Day”: Students’ Understanding of Big Ideas and Macro and Submicro Chemistry Phenomena in the Context of Computer-Based Models

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined high school chemistry students’ understandings of big ideas—matter and energy, how these understandings are related to macro and submicro representations and fine-grained distinguishing characteristics of students’ explanations. The study was conducted in the context of computer-based models and model-based assessments. Qualitative analysis, descriptive statistics and a stepwise Regression model was run to examine students’ explanations to assessment questions and their relationship to quantitative measures of students’ understandings of big ideas. Students’ explanations revealed consistent level 1 and 2 understandings for each big idea. When we examined the relationship between explanations and students’ understandings of big ideas, the step-wise regression model was statistically significant for matter and energy. At the fine-grained level, students’ explanations revealed distinct clusters—knowledge components that students used to construct descriptive and explanatory explanations for each level of understanding. These findings have implications for effective instructional approaches, targeted enactment of computer-based models and understandings of the range of novice chemistry understanding.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Mayer (2001) for detailed discussion of best practice principles to guide design and development of animation and simulations learning platforms. These principles include the modality principle, spatial contiguity principle, temporal contiguity principle, coherence principle, redundancy principle, and individual difference principle.

References

  • Adadan, E., Trundle, K. C., & Irving, K. E. (2010). Exploring grade 11 students’ conceptual pathways of the particulate nature of matter in the context of multirepresentational instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1004–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, D. C., Alonzo, A. C., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11, 33–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design and principles. Science Education, 90, 1073–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 278–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Kaberman, Z. (2012). Assessing high school chemistry students’ modeling sub-skills in a computerized molecular learning environment. Instructional Science, 40, 69–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 655–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Duschl, R. A. (2004). Interdisciplinary characterizations of models and the nature of chemical knowledge in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 40, 105–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An Introduction. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. D., O’Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B., & Levy, S. T. (2010). Examining the relationship between students’ understanding of the nature of models and conceputal learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. D., O’Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B. C., Tal Levy, S., & Wilenksy, U. (2011). Examining the relationship between students’ understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 653–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregorius, R. Ma. (2010). Good animations: Pedagogy and learning theory in the design and use of multimedia. In R. E. Belford, J. W. Moore, & H. E. Pence (Eds.), Enhancing learning with online resources, social networking, and digital libraries (pp. 167–190). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

  • Hadenfeldt, J. C., Neumann, K., Bernholt, S., Liu, X., & Parchmann, I. (2016). Students’ progression in understanding the matter concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 683–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., Gray, S., & Jordan, R. (2015). Using representational tools to learn about complex systems: A tale of two classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 6–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H., Zhan, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2013). Developing a fine-grained learning progression framework for carbon-transforming processes. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1663–1697.

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinbaum, D., Kupper, L., Muller, K., & Nizam, A. (1998). Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., Sutherland, L. M., Drago, K., & Merritt, J. (2012). The promise and value of learning progression research. In S. Bernholt, K. Neumann, & P. Nentwig (Eds.), Learning outcomes in science education (pp. 261–283). Waxman Verlag GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Inventing a “mid level” to make ends meet: Reasoning between the levels of complexity. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Lesniak, K. (2005). Students’ progression of understanding the matter concept from elementary to high school. Science Education, 89(3), 433–450.

  • Liu, X., & Lesniak, K. (2006). Progression in children’s understanding of the matter concept from elementary to high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 320–347.

  • Liu, X., Waight, N., Gregorius, R. M., Smith, E., & Park, M. (2012). Developing computer model-based assessment of chemical reasoning: A feasibility study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31, 259–281.

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science education standards. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordine, J., & Lee, O. (2021). Strengthening science and engineering learning with crosscutting concepts. In J. Nordine & O. Lee (Eds.), Crosscutting concepts: Strengthening science and engineering learning (chapter 1 (pp. 3–17). NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, J. S., Hodges, G. W., Moore, J. N., Cohen, A., Jang, Y., Brown, S. A., Kwon, K. A., Jeong, S., Raven, S. P., Jurkiewicz, M., & Robertson, T. P. (2019). Supporting high school student accomplishment of biology content using interactive computer-based curricular case studies. Research in Science Education, 49, 1783–1808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, M., Liu, X., Smith, E. & Waight, N. (2017a). The effect of computer models as formative assessment on student understanding of the nature of models. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4, 572–581.

  • Park, M., Liu, X., & Waight, N. (2017b). Development of the connected chemistry as formative assessment pedagogy for high school chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 94, 273–281.

  • Plummer, J. D., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: Elementary levels from an earth-based perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 768–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samarapungavan, A., Bryan, L., & Wills, J. (2017). Second graders’ emerging particle models of matter in the context of learning through model-based inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21394

  • Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14, 21–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). The relation between students’ epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modeling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1205–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4(1&2), 1–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stains, M. & Talanquer, V. (2008). Classification of chemical reactions: Stages of expertise. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 771–793.

  • Stieff, M. (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1137–1158.

  • Urhahne, D., Nick, S., & Schanze, S. (2009). The effect of three-dimensional simulations on the understanding of chemical structures and their properties. Research in Science Education, 39, 495–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

  • Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo, Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Retrieved September 8, 2021 from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo

Download references

Acknowledgements

The materials reported in this paper are based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-0918295. The authors sincerely thank the contributions made by Dr. Gail Zichittella. We also want to thank the teacher and students who graciously allowed us into their classroom.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning and Instruction University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, 14260, USA

    Noemi Waight, Xiufeng Liu & Melinda Whitford

Authors
  1. Noemi Waight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiufeng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melinda Whitford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noemi Waight.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Disclaimer

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Worksheet for the Acids and Bases NetLogo Model

This computer modeling activity will help you explore things related to acids and bases. Please follow the steps in sequence to become familiar with various features of the computer model.

  • Step 1: In the main menu choose the Acid/Base model and then select “2 Strong Acid/Strong Base Titration” to open the NetLogo model.

  • Step 2: Learning How to Use the Model.

1. Select “base-in-acid” under the Titration pull-down menu, press setup and “go/halt,” then examine several aspects of the model by answering the following questions.

figure a

1a. What is happening in the middle window? Use the image below as a guide.

figure b
figure c

2. Press “add Acid/Base” button a few times while the model is running, observe what is happening. Write down your observations by answering the following questions.

2a. How is the titration curve changing in the graphing window? Use the image below as a guide.

figure d

2b. How are the numbers in the monitors below the middle window changing as you press the “add Acid/Base” button? Select the best choice for EACH.

Base – Hydroxide Ions: increasing/decreasing/remain the same.

Acid-Hydronium Ions: increasing/decreasing/remain the same.

Water Molecules: increasing/decreasing/remain the same.

figure e

Appendix 2 Student assessment questions

Sample assessment questions for each content area are organized to represent matter and energy.

Content Unit—Gases

9. Which of the following best expresses the difference between the substances inside and outside the cylinder as represented in the left-hand window?

  • (a) Atomic structures may be different (level 2).

  • (b) Composition may be different (level 1).

  • (c) Intermolecular forces may be different (level 3).

14. While the clip is fixed, press the COLD button one time. Which of the following statements best describes what happens in the system?

  • (a) The kinetic energy of the particles in the cylinder decreased (level 1).

  • (b) The total energy in the cylinder decreased (level 3).

  • (c) The amount of transferred energy to the movable wall decreased (level 2).

26. What does the Gas Temp vs. Time graph best represent?

  • (a) What happens to a gas system when it absorbs/releases heat (level 2)

  • (b) The expected relationship between heat and temperature (level 3)

  • (c) How temperature changes over time (level 1)

Content Unit—Solutions

4. Which of the following best describes the difference between cooking oil in water and salt in water?

  • (a) Only one results in bond breaking (level 2).

  • (b) Particles of one solute have strong interactions with water molecules (level 3).

  • (c) One is a solution the other a mixture (level 1).

8. Which of the following statements bests describes the particles of oil and water in terms of energy?

  • (a) Kinetic and potential energy can be transferred (level 2).

  • (b) The water system is more disordered than the oil system (level 3).

  • (c) They have both kinetic and potential energy (level 1).

15. What does the size of different colored balls best represent?

  • (a) Hypothesized relative sizes of atoms (level 3).

  • (b) Relative sizes of atoms (level 2).

  • (c) Actual sizes of different atoms (level 1).

Content Unit—Acids Bases

1. In the Acid, Base, Salt and Water simulation (model 1a), which of the following best describes the dissolving of salt in water?

  • (a) Change in chemical bonds (level 2).

  • (b) Change in phase of substance (level 1).

  • (c) Change in type of intermolecular interactions (level 3).

8. Which of the following statements best describes energy during an acid–base titration in Model 1c?

  • (a) The chemical energy of the substances changes (level 2).

  • (b) Reactants and products have chemical energy (level 1).

  • (c) The system may become less ordered (level 3).

9. In the Acids, Bases, Salt and Water (model 1a) simulation, what do the bouncing balls of various colors best represent?

  • (a) A Different shapes and colors of HCl, NaOH, NaCl and H2O (level 1).

  • (b) Possible behaviors of particles in an acid, base, salt and water (level 3).

  • (c) Different compositions of acid, base, salt and water (level 2).

Appendix 3

Table

Table 5 Stepwise regression model: description and coding of variables
Full size table

5

Appendix 4

Table

Table 6 Example of coding scheme for students’ explanations for gases assessment
Full size table

6

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Waight, N., Liu, X. & Whitford, M. “Like They Are Everyday Substances, You Like See Them, Hold Them, Use Them Every Day”: Students’ Understanding of Big Ideas and Macro and Submicro Chemistry Phenomena in the Context of Computer-Based Models. Res Sci Educ 53, 935–960 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10114-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10114-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation