Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T18:40:28.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Everything you've always wanted to know about what your students think they know but were afraid to ask.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Eric Werwa*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Otterbein College, Westerville, OH 43081, USAEWerwa@Otterbein.edu
Get access

Abstract

A review of the educational literature on naive concepts about principles of chemistry and physics and surveys of science museum visitors reveal that people of all ages have robust alternative notions about the nature of atoms, matter, and bonding that persist despite formal science education experiences. Some confusion arises from the profound differences in the way that scientists and the lay public use terms such as materials, metals, liquids, models, function, matter, and bonding. Many models that eloquently articulate arrangements of atoms and molecules to informed scientists are not widely understood by lay people and may promote naive notions among the public. Shifts from one type of atomic model to another and changes in size scales are particularly confusing to learners. People's abilities to describe and understand the properties of materials are largely based on tangible experiences, and much of what students learn in school does not help them interpret their encounters with materials and phenomena in everyday life. Identification of these challenges will help educators better convey the principles of materials science and engineering to students, and will be particularly beneficial in the design of the Materials MicroWorld traveling museum exhibit.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Korn, Randi and Associates, A Front-End Evaluation of Materials MicroWorld, Prepared for the Materials Research Society (Randi Korn and Associates, Alexandria, VA, October 1999).Google Scholar
2. Nakhleh, M.B., Journal of Chemical Education 69, 191 (1992).Google Scholar
3. Griffiths, A.K. and Preston, K.R., Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29, 611 (1992).Google Scholar
4. Dyche, S.E., McClurg, P., Stepans, J., and Veath, M.L., School Sci. and Math. 93, 191 (1993).Google Scholar
5. Harrison, A.G. and Treagust, D.F., Science Education 80, 509 (1996).Google Scholar
6. Lee, O., Eichinger, D.C., Anderseon, C.W., Berkheimer, G.D., and Blakeselee, T.D., Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30, 249 (1993).Google Scholar
7. Renstrom, L., Andersson, B., and Marton, F., J. of Educational Psychology 82, 555 (1990).Google Scholar
8. Stavy, R., School Science and Mathematics 91, 240 (1991).Google Scholar
9. Birley, G. and Dewhirst, W., Research in Education 44, 13 (1990).Google Scholar
10. Ben-Zvi, R., Bat-Sheva, E., and Silberstein, J., Journal of Chemical Education. 63, 64 (1986).Google Scholar
11. Strauss, M.J. and Levine, S.H., Journal of College Science Teaching, 15, 190 (1985/86).Google Scholar
12. Kruger, C., Palacio, D., and Summers, M., Science Education 76, 339 (1992).Google Scholar
13. Stepans, J., Beiswenger, R.E., and Dyche, S.E., The Science Teacher 53, 65 (1986).Google Scholar
14. Shepherd, D.L. and Renner, J.W., School Science and Mathematics 82, 650 (1982).Google Scholar
15. Gabel, D.L., Samuel, K.V., and Hunn, D., Journal of Chemical Education 64, 695 (1987).Google Scholar
16. Harrison, A.G., Grayson, D.J., and Treagust, D.F., J. Res. in Science Teaching 36, 55 (1999).Google Scholar