Incommensurability and Multiple Models: Representations of the Structure of Matter in Undergraduate Chemistry Students

Abstract

The notion of incommensurability has provided a rationality criterion for the development of scientific theories, as well as some insight into theories developed by students while learning science. However, the relationship between the multiple models held by students and incommensurability requires further discussion. We present the results of empirical work that investigated the multiple models of the structure of the matter held by university students and we analyze these results using the notion of incommensurability. We also point out implications in the construction of students' scientific models as they move forward in their careers.

Modeling and the Future of Science Learning

“…The use of multiple models is particularly prevalent in some sciences such as physics and chemistry, especially when it comes to developing an understanding of abstract microscopic concepts like atomic structure and chemical bonding (Brodie et al, 1994;Chiu, Chou, & Liu, 2002;Comba & Hambley, 1995;Eilam, 2004;Glynn & Duit, 1995;Lin & Chiu, 2007;Lopes & Costa, 2007). Again, as might be expected, there are significant differences in how scientists view and use multiple models (see, e.g., Clement, 1998;Flores-Camacho et al, 2007;Grosslight et al, 1991;Harrison & De Jong, 2005), with scientists again acting in a highly pragmatic fashion. As an illustration, there are numerous models for chemical bonding, and scientists use whichever model seems appropriate and convenient (Coll & Treagust, 2003a, 2003b.…”

“…Another aspect of the nature of science and models is the fact that it is common for scientist to use multiple models to describe an entity (Flores-Camacho, Gallegos-Cázares, Garritz, & García- Franco, 2007) or explain phenomena/data (Barnea, Dori, & Finegold, 1995;Birk & Abbassain, 1996;Lin & Chiu, 2007). The use of multiple models is particularly prevalent in some sciences such as physics and chemistry, especially when it comes to developing an understanding of abstract microscopic concepts like atomic structure and chemical bonding (Brodie et al, 1994;Chiu, Chou, & Liu, 2002;Comba & Hambley, 1995;Eilam, 2004;Glynn & Duit, 1995;Lin & Chiu, 2007;Lopes & Costa, 2007).…”

Evolución de los modelos explicativos de los alumnos en torno al cambio químico a través de una propuesta didáctica con analogías

“…Por otro lado, encontramos numerosos estudios (Mortimer, 1998;Benarroch, 2000Benarroch, y 2001Selley, 2000;Galagvsky et al, 2003;Garritz-Ruiz y Gallego-Cázares, 2004; Gómez Crespo y Pozo, 2004;Flores Camacho et al, 2007;Espíndola Cappannini, 2010) en los que se analiza la evolución de las interpretaciones de los alumnos sobre la materia y sus transformaciones, inicialmente macroscópicas hasta otras que se sitúan en una escala submicroscópica. La mayoría de los autores consideran que dicha evolución es un factor positivo y un indicador de aprendizaje, al revelar un proceso de transformación de una imagen del mundo basada en aspectos perceptibles a otra centrada en aspectos formales que van más allá de lo que el alumno puede ver y tocar.…”

Representaciones en Física: construcción y validación de un cuestionario para la Enseñanza Media Superior

“…Sin embargo, uno de los principales problemas que persiste es que, a pesar de los avances en la comprensión de las nociones científicas con procesos educativos orientados por las teorías de cambio conceptual, las ideas previas que los sujetos construyeron en algún momento de su desarrollo no se eliminan o "cambian" por otras, y aparecen, nuevamente, cuando el contexto lo facilita (Flores y Gallegos, 1999;Pozo, 2014). Así, ideas como asignar propiedades macroscópicas a entidades microscópicas (Flores-Camacho et al, 2007) aparecen en contextos externos a los escolares (clase, laboratorio, etc. ).…”