6/2019 vol. 15
Stats
CC-BY 4.0
Get citation
RESEARCH PAPER
How Chinese and American Students Construct Explanations of Carbon-Transforming Processes
Pingping Zhao 1
,
 
Charles W. Anderson 2
,
 
Emily Scott 3
,
 
Karen Draney 4
,
 
Jinho Kim 4
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
College of Life Science, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050024, CHINA
 
2
College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
 
3
Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
 
4
Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
 
 
Online publication date: 2019-01-21
 
 
Publication date: 2019-01-21
 
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2019;15(6):em1688
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103067
 
 
Article (PDF)
References (30)
 
KEYWORDS
carbon cycling learning progression
carbon-transforming processes
crosscutting concepts
model-based explanations
three-dimensional learning
 
ABSTRACT
Previous studies reported a learning progression that described the development of American students’ explanations of carbon-transforming processes. This study examined the validity of this learning progression for Chinese middle school students. The comparison of American and Chinese students’ performances showed both similarities and differences between the two groups. They shared similar general trends in their learning progressions from simple force-dynamic accounts to scientific model-based reasoning. Most students did not construct model-based explanations: (1) they did not trace matter and energy separately, and (2) they did not connect phenomena at the macroscopic scale to mechanisms at the cellular and atomic-molecular scale. There were some key differences. These differences might be due to culture, exam systems, or other aspects of science education in these two countries. Implications for improving science education in each country are discussed.
REFERENCES (30)
1.
Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and psychological measurement, 33(3), 613-619. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
2.
Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago University Press, Chicago. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
3.
Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
4.
Gu, M. Y. (2013). Influence of traditional Chinese culture on Chinese education. In Cultural Foundations of Chinese Education (pp. 89–127). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/978900....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
5.
Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students’ conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 277-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.36....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
6.
Irribarra, D. T., & Freund, R. (2014). Wright Map: IRT item-person map with ConQuest integration, R Package “WrightMap”. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web....
Google Scholar
 
 
7.
Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1149-1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
8.
Jin, H., Zhan, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2013). Developing a fine-grained learning progression framework for carbon-transforming processes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1663–1697. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
9.
Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002a). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modeling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
10.
Lin, C. Y., & Hu, R. (2003). Students’ understanding of energy flow and matter cycling in the context of the food chain, photosynthesis, and respiration. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1529–1544. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
11.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf0229....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
12.
Miller, H. K., Johnson, W. R., Freed, A. W., Doherty, J. H., & Anderson, C. W. (submitted, 2017). Crosscutting concepts for re-orienting science education. Submitted to Science Education.
Google Scholar
 
 
13.
Mohan, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Teaching experiments and the carbon cycle learning progression. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
Google Scholar
 
 
14.
Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
15.
Mohan, L., Chen, J., Baek, H., Anderson, C. W., Choy, J., Lee Y. S. (2009). Validation of a multi-year carbon cycle learning progression: a closer look at progress variables and processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, Garden Grove, CA.
Google Scholar
 
 
16.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
17.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11625.
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
18.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
19.
National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18409.
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
20.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org....
Google Scholar
 
 
21.
Qi, L. (2004). Has a high-stakes test produced the intended changes? In L. Cheng, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 171-190). Mahwah, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum & Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/978141....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
22.
Schmitz, R. (2011). The downside of exam-based education in China. Marketplace. Retrieved from http://marketplace.publicradio....
Google Scholar
 
 
23.
Stern, L., & Ahlgren, A. (2002). Analysis of students’ assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
24.
Thomas, J., Kim, J. H., & Draney, K. (2018). Machine scoring and IRT analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, Atlanta, GA.
Google Scholar
 
 
25.
Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Braaten, M., Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(5), 1-58. Retrieved from https://www.tcrecord.org/conte....
Google Scholar
 
 
26.
Toulmin, S. (1961). Foresight and understanding. Great Britain: The Anchor Press.
Google Scholar
 
 
27.
Wright, B. D., Linacre, J. M., Gustafsson, J. E., & Martin-Loff, P. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370. Retrieved from https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt8....
Google Scholar
 
 
28.
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., Haldane, S.A. (2007). ACER ConQuest 2.0 Manual [computer program]. Hawthorn, Australia: ACER.
Google Scholar
 
 
29.
Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T. (2015). Exploring third-grade student model-based explanations about plant relationships within an ecosystem. International Journal of Science Education, 37(18), 2942–2964. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
30.
Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T., Schwarz, C. V. (2015). Exploring the effect of embedded scaffolding within curricular tasks on third-grade students’ model-based explanations about hydrologic cycling. Science & Education, 24, 957–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
Share
Send by email
RELATED ARTICLE
A physics instructor’s enactment of three-dimensional learning: Action research
Analysis of Greek Middle-school Science Textbooks about Forces and Motion from the Perspective of Three-dimensional Learning
Indexes
 
Keywords index
Topics index
Authors index
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215
Journals System - logo
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
Scroll to top