The Insidious Nature of ‘Hard‐Core’ Alternative Conceptions: Implications for the constructivist research programme of patterns in high school students’ and pre‐service teachers’ thinking about ionisation energy

Abstract

Tan. The insidious nature of 'hard core' alternative conceptions: Implications for the constructivist research programme of patterns in high school students' and pre-service teachers' thinking about ionisation energy.. AbstractThe present study contributes to the constructivist research programme (RP) into learning science by comparing patterns in responses from two groups of learnerssenior high schools students and pre-service teachers -in the same educational context (Singapore), to a diagnostic instrument relating to the topic of ionisation energies. This topic is currently included in the curriculum for 16-19 year-old students studying chemistry in Singapore (and elsewhere). The comparison shows that although (a) graduate pre-service teachers offered some types of incorrect responses less frequently than high school students; (b) they retained high levels of alternative conceptions commonly found among high school students; and -of particular note -(c) certain alternative conceptions were found to be more common among the graduates. This suggest the intuitive appeal of certain alternative conceptions is such that they can readily be reproduced down 'generations' of learners. The findings are explored in terms of a range of conceptual resources that have been developed within the constructivist RP. The analysis suggests that the curriculum sets out inappropriate target knowledge for senior high school students, given the nature of the subject matter and the prior learning of the students. It is also suggested that it may be fruitful to consider conceptual learning in terms analogous to the RP found in science, and that from this perspective certain insidious alternative conceptions can be understood as derived from commitments that are taken-for-granted and protected from explicit challenge by a protective belt of refutable auxiliary conceptions.

Is it harder to know or to reason? Analyzing two-tier science assessment items using the Rasch measurement model

“…Within Asian contexts, a growing body of research has explored the use of two-tier items, some entirely multiple choice and others with open-ended components (Taber and Tan 2011;Tan et al 2002;Tsui and Treagust 2009). In the current findings, the data from the LPDI, which were collected in Asian settings (i.e., Singapore and Korea) showed results consistent with the notion that tier-2 reasoning items would be harder than tier-1 knowledge items.…”

“…The two tiers in two-tier items act together to uncover students' understanding of core concepts because the student must choose a seemingly "factual" knowledge response for the first tier (Taber and Tan 2011), and then choose for the second tier what reasoning about the concept they used to arrive at the first-tier response. A large body of research across contexts has applied two-tier items to uncover students' understanding of scientific concepts as broad ranging as optics, scientific reasoning, and scientific knowledge integration and in various settings such as the US, UK, Korea, Singapore, and Australia (Chu and Treagust 2009;Johnson and Tymms 2011;Liu et al 2011;Taber and Tan 2011;Tsui and Treagust 2009).Despite the breadth of this prior research, there is still relatively little attention over how best to analyze two-tier responses and uncover how students respond to the two tiers. In particular, through rigorous measurement approaches, it is possible to examine two of the fundamental notions about two-tier items and students' responses: (1) whether the traits assessed by the first and second tiers are distinguishable yet related, and (2) whether the second tier is indeed more difficult than the first tier.…”

“…The two tiers in two-tier items act together to uncover students' understanding of core concepts because the student must choose a seemingly "factual" knowledge response for the first tier (Taber and Tan 2011), and then choose for the second tier what reasoning about the concept they used to arrive at the first-tier response. A large body of research across contexts has applied two-tier items to uncover students' understanding of scientific concepts as broad ranging as optics, scientific reasoning, and scientific knowledge integration and in various settings such as the US, UK, Korea, Singapore, and Australia (Chu and Treagust 2009;Johnson and Tymms 2011;Liu et al 2011;Taber and Tan 2011;Tsui and Treagust 2009).…”

“…Analyzing students' responses can address this empirically. For the latter notion, prior work has posited that the second-tier portion is more difficult because it involves providing a rationale that goes beyond knowing (Taber and Tan 2011). Yet, very little research has uncovered whether students' responses on the tiers support the belief that reasoning about one's knowledge-which is indicative of understanding-is more difficult than just knowing the fact.…”

Improving preservice chemistry teachers’ content knowledge through intervention activities

“…Explaining differences in ionisation energy values is an area where pupils and their teachers alike use ACs (Taber & Tan, 2011). The use of these ideas is replicated across continents with little variation between pupils around the world.…”