A construct-modeling approach to develop a learning progression of how students understand the structure of matter

Abstract

This paper builds on the current literature base about learning progressions in science to address the question, “What is the nature of the learning progression in the content domain of the structure of matter?” We introduce a learning progression in response to that question and illustrate a methodology, the Construct Modeling (Wilson, ) approach, for investigating the progression through a developmentally based iterative process. This study puts forth a progression of how students understand the structure of matter by empirically inter‐relating constructs of different levels of sophistication using a sample of 1,087 middle grade students from a large diverse public school district in the western part of the United States. The study also shows that student thinking can be more complex than hypothesized as in the case of our discovery of a substructure of understanding in a single construct within the larger progression. Data were analyzed using a multidimensional Rasch model. Implications for teaching and learning are discussed—we suggest that the teacher's choice of instructional approach needs to be fashioned in terms of a model, grounded in evidence, of the paths through which learning might best proceed, working toward the desired targets by a pedagogy which also cultivates students’ development as effective learners. This research sheds light on the need for assessment methods to be used as guides for formative work and as tools to ensure the learning goals have been achieved at the end of the learning period. The development and investigation of a learning progression of how students understand the structure of matter using the Construct Modeling approach makes an important contribution to the research on learning progressions and serves as a guide to the planning and implementation in the teaching of this topic. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 9999:1024–1048, 2017

Toward coherence in curriculum, instruction, and assessment: A review of learning progression literature

“…Wright maps may also suggest that a new variable or a subdimension should be added to the LP. For example, Morell, Collier, Black, and Wilson () identified the existence of subcategories within a variable of their initial matter LP.…”

Knowing more about things you care less about: Cross‐sectional analysis of the opposing trend and interplay between conceptual understanding and interest in secondary school chemistry

“…Although the relevance of fundamental concepts have been emphasized for many years, research on students' understanding has consistently shown that students' fail to obtain a deeper understanding even of the most fundamental concepts, for instance the particulate nature of matter (Löfgren & Helldén, ; Morell, Collier, Black, & Wilson, ; Stefani & Tsaparlis, ), chemical reaction (cf., Talanquer, ; Taskin & Bernholt, ), or energy (cf., Herrmann‐Abell & DeBoer, ; Neumann, Viering, Boone, & Fischer, ). Thus, it remains an open question to which extent school science enables students to develop a sophisticated understanding of fundamental concepts in the domain and which learning gains can be expected from year to year (Bloom, Hill, Black, & Lipsey, ).…”

Helping students to become capable learners

“…The outcome is a map of the interlinking of many component concepts which can be used as a guide for teachers' planning. Such maps have been produced by work in England (Johnson & Tymms, 2011), Germany (Hadenfeldt, Neumann, Bernholt, & Liu, 2016) and the US (Morell, Collier, Black, & Wilson, 2017). In general, state curricula only provide a general and partly hypothetical basis on which teachers choose a progression sequence in promoting students' learning.…”