Affiliation:
1. Zhejiang Normal University, China
2. East China Normal University, China
Abstract
Students’ problem-solving ability depends on their understanding of related scientific concepts. Therefore, the modeling and assessment of students’ understanding of specific scientific concepts is important to promote students’ problem-solving ability, as it can find students’ understanding difficulties and explore breakthrough strategies accordingly. Inspired by the theory of knowledge integration and combined with the situational characteristics of science education in China, this study established a conceptual framework about buoyant force, which was applied to model students’ different understandings of it. And based on the established framework, an assessment of buoyant force was designed and tested among 622 Chinese lower-secondary school students. Through the analysis of the test data and the interview outcomes, it was found that students’ understanding of buoyant force could be divided into three levels of knowledge integration including novice, intermediate, and expert. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that an emphasis on the nature of buoyant force can be an effective strategy to help students achieve a deeper conceptual understanding of buoyant force, leading to a more integrated knowledge structure.
Keywords: assessment of knowledge integration, buoyant force, central idea, conceptual framework, scientific concept understanding
Reference46 articles.
1. Alonso, & Marcelo. (1992). Problem solving vs. conceptual understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60(9), 777-778. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17056
2. Bao, L., & Fritchman, J. C. (2021). Knowledge integration in student learning of Newton's third law: Addressing the action-reaction language and the implied causality. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2), Article 020116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020116
3. Besson, U. (2004). Students' conceptions of fluids. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1683-1714. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000243745
4. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objetives: The classification of educational goals: handbook I: cognitive domain (No. 373.19 C734t). New York, US.
5. Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1981). A perspective on the differences between expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Research in Science Education, 12(1), 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357016
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献