结构-性质推理阐释和支撑化学家思维的视角

IF 2.2 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Marie-Jetta den Otter, Alma Kuijpers, Michiel Dam, Ludo Juurlink, Fred Janssen
{"title":"结构-性质推理阐释和支撑化学家思维的视角","authors":"Marie-Jetta den Otter, Alma Kuijpers, Michiel Dam, Ludo Juurlink, Fred Janssen","doi":"10.1007/s11165-023-10142-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Chemical reasoning, and in particular structure–property reasoning, is an important goal of chemistry education. Johnstone’s triangle (1982, 1991) is often used to explicate this type of reasoning. This triangle describes the multilevel thought chemical reasoning requires and shows why students find chemistry so difficult. However, this model gives little guidance for teachers and students on how to teach and learn structure–property reasoning. In this theoretical article, we propose an alternative model for structure–property reasoning which has three advantages compared with previous models, namely, more coherence between chemical concepts and the skill of reasoning, more horizontal coherence (coherence between the concepts), and more vertical coherence (coherence throughout the school years). In four cases selected from the Dutch secondary school chemistry curriculum, the model was used to show how it can guide teachers and students in teaching and learning structure–property reasoning, and to demonstrate these above-named three advantages. The presented model has various educational applications as a scaffold for students’ reasoning, and as an instruction, design, and curriculum tool for teachers.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Perspective for Structure–Property Reasoning to Explicate and Scaffold Thinking like a Chemist\",\"authors\":\"Marie-Jetta den Otter, Alma Kuijpers, Michiel Dam, Ludo Juurlink, Fred Janssen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11165-023-10142-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Chemical reasoning, and in particular structure–property reasoning, is an important goal of chemistry education. Johnstone’s triangle (1982, 1991) is often used to explicate this type of reasoning. This triangle describes the multilevel thought chemical reasoning requires and shows why students find chemistry so difficult. However, this model gives little guidance for teachers and students on how to teach and learn structure–property reasoning. In this theoretical article, we propose an alternative model for structure–property reasoning which has three advantages compared with previous models, namely, more coherence between chemical concepts and the skill of reasoning, more horizontal coherence (coherence between the concepts), and more vertical coherence (coherence throughout the school years). In four cases selected from the Dutch secondary school chemistry curriculum, the model was used to show how it can guide teachers and students in teaching and learning structure–property reasoning, and to demonstrate these above-named three advantages. The presented model has various educational applications as a scaffold for students’ reasoning, and as an instruction, design, and curriculum tool for teachers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10142-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10142-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

化学推理,特别是结构-性质推理,是化学教育的重要目标。Johnstone’s triangle(1982, 1991)常被用来解释这种类型的推理。这个三角形描述了化学推理所需要的多层次思维,并说明了为什么学生发现化学如此困难。然而,该模型对教师和学生如何教授和学习结构属性推理几乎没有指导作用。在这篇理论文章中,我们提出了一个结构-属性推理的替代模型,与以前的模型相比,它有三个优点,即化学概念和推理技能之间的更强的一致性,更强的水平一致性(概念之间的一致性)和更强的垂直一致性(整个学年的一致性)。从荷兰中学化学课程中选取了四个案例,用该模型来说明它如何指导教师和学生进行结构-属性推理的教学,并展示了上述三个优势。所提出的模型具有各种教育应用,可以作为学生推理的框架,也可以作为教师的指导、设计和课程工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Perspective for Structure–Property Reasoning to Explicate and Scaffold Thinking like a Chemist

A Perspective for Structure–Property Reasoning to Explicate and Scaffold Thinking like a Chemist

Chemical reasoning, and in particular structure–property reasoning, is an important goal of chemistry education. Johnstone’s triangle (1982, 1991) is often used to explicate this type of reasoning. This triangle describes the multilevel thought chemical reasoning requires and shows why students find chemistry so difficult. However, this model gives little guidance for teachers and students on how to teach and learn structure–property reasoning. In this theoretical article, we propose an alternative model for structure–property reasoning which has three advantages compared with previous models, namely, more coherence between chemical concepts and the skill of reasoning, more horizontal coherence (coherence between the concepts), and more vertical coherence (coherence throughout the school years). In four cases selected from the Dutch secondary school chemistry curriculum, the model was used to show how it can guide teachers and students in teaching and learning structure–property reasoning, and to demonstrate these above-named three advantages. The presented model has various educational applications as a scaffold for students’ reasoning, and as an instruction, design, and curriculum tool for teachers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Science Education
Research in Science Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: 2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021 2020 Impact Factor: 5.439 Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus 2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership. RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal. You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research: Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know. RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted. The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers. Empircal contributions are: Theoretically or conceptually grounded; Relevant to science education theory and practice; Highlight limitations of the study; and Identify possible future research opportunities. From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks. Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is: No longer than 6000 words, including references. Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability; Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education; Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE. While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信