Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uncovering Implicit Assumptions: a Large-Scale Study on Students’ Mental Models of Diffusion

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students’ mental models of diffusion in a gas phase solution were studied through the use of the Structure and Motion of Matter (SAMM) survey. This survey permits identification of categories of ways students think about the structure of the gaseous solute and solvent, the origin of motion of gas particles, and trajectories of solute particles in the gaseous medium. A large sample of data (N = 423) from students across grade 8 (age 13) through upper-level undergraduate was subjected to a cluster analysis to determine the main mental models present. The cluster analysis resulted in a reduced data set (N = 308), and then, mental models were ascertained from robust clusters. The mental models that emerged from analysis were triangulated through interview data and characterised according to underlying implicit assumptions that guide and constrain thinking about diffusion of a solute in a gaseous medium. Impacts of students’ level of preparation in science and relationships of mental models to science disciplines studied by students were examined. Implications are discussed for the value of this approach to identify typical mental models and the sets of implicit assumptions that constrain them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson, B. (1986). The Experiential Gestalt of Causation - a Common Core to Pupils Preconceptions in Science. European Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S.E. & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough? National Center for Research Methods Review Paper, Swindon, UK: Economic Research Council. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2014.

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B. S., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borges, A. T., & Gilbert, J. K. (1998). Models of magnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 361–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borges, A. T., & Gilbert, J. K. (1999). Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boz, Y. (2006). Turkish pupils’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2008). Conceptual change in Physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), The international handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 127–154). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The process and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht London: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiou, G. L., & Anderson, O. R. (2010). A study of undergraduate Physics students’ understanding of heat conduction based on mental model theory and an ontology-process analysis. Science Education, 94(5), 825–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. H., Chou, C.-C., & Liu, C.-J. (2002). Dynamic processes of conceptual change: analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 688–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. H., & Lin, J. W. (2007). Exploring the characteristics and diverse sources of students’ mental models of acids and bases. International Journal of Science Education, 29(6), 771–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. J., & Steinberg, M. S. (2002). Step-wise evolution of mental models of electric circuits: a “learning-aloud” case study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 389–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003a). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 464–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003b). Learners’ mental models of metallic bonding: a cross-age study. Science Education, 87(5), 685–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. (2002). Why ‘conceptual change’ is a good idea. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht London: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushword, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: research into children’s ideas. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., & Rivet, A. E. (2013). Science learning progressions. Science, 339(6118), 396–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M., Rosengren, K. S., Lane, J. D., & Price, K. L. S. (2012). Encountering counterintuitive ideas: constructing a developmental learning progression for evolution understanding. In K. S. Rosengren, S. K. Brem, E. M. Evans, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges: integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 174–196). Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998a). Models in explanations, part 1: horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998b). Models in explanations, Part 2: whose voice? Whose ears? International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, J. (1992). Genius: the life and science of Richard Feynman (1st ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. F. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 285–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubber, P. (2006). Year 12 students’ mental models of the nature of light. Research in Science Education, 36(4), 419–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansoon, N., Coll, R. K., & Somsook, E. (2009). Understanding mental models of dilution in Thai students. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(2), 147–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, D. R., Vosniadou, S., diSessa, A., & Thagard, P. (2000). Scientific explanation, systematicity, and conceptual change. Paper presented at the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.

  • Lawrence Hall of Science (Producer). (2006, 02/19/2010). Chemical interactions. Full option science system for middle school. http://lawrencehallofscience.org/foss/scope/folio/html/ChemicalInteractions/1.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2013

  • Meijer, M. R., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2013). Macro–micro thinking with structure–property relations: integrating ‘meso-levels’ in secondary education. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education (pp. 417–435). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meir, E., Perry, J., Stal, D., Maruca, S., & Klopfer, E. (2005). How effective are simulated molecular-level experiments for teaching diffusion and osmosis? Cell Biology Education, 4(3), 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merritt, J., & Krajcik, J. (2013). Learning progression developed to support students in building a particle model of matter. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education (pp. 11–44). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Odom, A. L. (1995). Secondary and college biology students misconceptions about diffusion and osmosis. American Biology Teacher, 57(7), 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual change. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 351–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panizzon, D. (2003). Using a cognitive structural model to provide new insights into students’ understandings of diffusion. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1427–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittman, K. M. (1999). Student-generated analogies: another way of knowing? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozo, J. I., & Gomez Crespo, M. A. (2005). The embodied nature of implicit theories: the consistency of ideas about the nature of matter. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 351–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevian, H., & Stains, M. (2013). Implicit assumptions and progress variables in a learning progression about structure and motion of matter. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education (pp. 67–92). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–23.

  • Shepardson, D. P., Wee, B., Priddy, M., & Harbor, J. (2007). Students’ mental models of the environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stains, M.N., Escriu-Suñé, M., Molina, M., & Sevian, H. (2011). Assessing secondary and college students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: Development and validation of the Structure And Motion of Matter (SAMM) survey. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(10), 1359–1365.

  • Stains, M., & Sevian, H. (2010). The Structure and Mation of Matter Survey (SAMM) https://sites.google.com/site/sammsurvey/. Accessed 9 December 2013

  • Taber, K., & Garcia-Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate nature of matter. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 99–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talanquer, V. (2006). Commonsense chemistry: a model for understanding students’ alternative conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 811–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: the case of structure of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123–2136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talanquer, V. (2010). Exploring dominant types of explanations built by general chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2393–2412. doi:10.1080/09500690903369662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuminaro, J., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: epistemic games. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valanides, N. (2000). Primary student teachers’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its transformations during dissolving. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1, 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G., Bryer, L., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). Training students in the use of analogies to enhance understanding in science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 40, 60–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in physics: the part of common sense. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, S. (1994). Dealing honestly with diffusion. The American Biology Teacher, 56(7), 405–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2002). Mental models in conceptual development. In L. Magnani & N. J. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning : science, technology, values (p. xiii). New York: Kluwer Academic. 404 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. Second international handbook of science education (pp. 119–130): New York: Springer.

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the Earth—a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day-night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 123–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook, S. L., & Marek, E. A. (1991). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 649–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, M., Frazier, K. E., & Fox, V. (2013). At the beginning was amount of material: a learning progression for matter for early elementary grades. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education (pp. 93–120). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, M., & Smith, C. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: when should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), The international handbook of research on conceptual change. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the many students who participated in this study, and their teachers who helped to facilitate its possibility. The authors wish to thank Vicente Talanquer for insightful discussions that enhanced this research. This study was supported, in part, by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) award EHR-0412390.

Conflict of Interest

Part of this work was conducted while one of the authors (HS) was under employment of the NSF, with support through an Independent Research and Development Plan. The findings and opinions expressed are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, positions, or conclusions of the NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, University of Nebraska Lincoln, 712 Hamilton Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA

    Marilyne Stains

  2. Department of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA, 02125, USA

    Hannah Sevian

Authors
  1. Marilyne Stains
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hannah Sevian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannah Sevian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stains, M., Sevian, H. Uncovering Implicit Assumptions: a Large-Scale Study on Students’ Mental Models of Diffusion. Res Sci Educ 45, 807–840 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9450-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9450-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation