Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Chemistry
View Journal
Education Research
and Practice
Accepted Manuscript
This article can be cited before page numbers have been issued, to do this please use: H. Sevian and S.
Couture, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, DOI: 10.1039/C8RP00047F.
rsc.li/cerp
Page 1 of 27 Please
Chemistry do
not
Research
Education adjust
margins
and Practice
1
2
3 View Article Online
22
fourth-‐year
university,
each
solving
4
problems.
Using
16
contexts
with
substance
characterization
problems,
we
identified
23
5
epistemic
games
with
ontological
and
structural
stability
that
exist
in
two
larger
epistemological
frames.
All
of
these
24
epistemic
games
are
present
at
all
educational
levels,
but
some
appear
to
grow
in
across
educational
levels
as
others
25
recede.
Some
games
also
take
lesser
and
greater
precedence
depending
on
the
problem
and
the
chemistry
course
in
26
which
students
are
enrolled
and
the
context
of
the
problem.
We
analyze
these
results
through
a
frame
of
learning
27
progressions,
paying
attention
to
students’
ideas
and
how
these
ideas
are
contextualized.
Based
on
this
analysis,
we
28
propose
teaching
acts
that
instructors
may
use
to
leverage
the
natural
progressions
of
how
students
appear
to
grow
in
29
their
capacity
to
solve
problems.
30
31
Introduction
flexible
knowledge
and
become
better
problem
solvers,
32 whether
students
become
more
self-‐directed
learners
and
33 Problem-‐based
learning
is
generally
lauded
as
beneficial
and
is
collaborators,
and
students’
intrinsic
motivation.
She
34 increasingly
part
of
active
learning
approaches
to
science,
concluded
that
there
is
robust
evidence
that
students
35 engineering,
and
medicine
(Prince,
2004).
While
it
is
generally
successfully
construct
new
knowledge
and
that
students
36 agreed
that
students
should
learn
to
solve
problems,
what
a
develop
problem-‐solving
skills
under
particular
circumstances,
37 problem
is
has
several
definitions
in
the
literature.
Jonassen
but
evidence
of
self-‐direction,
collaboration,
and
intrinsic
38 (2000)
characterized
problems
as
having
two
features:
(1)
motivation
is
less
substantial.
Schmidt,
Rotgans,
and
Yew
39 there
is
a
difference
between
a
goal
state
and
the
current
(2011)
provided
a
review
of
the
process
of
problem-‐based
40 state,
and
(2)
there
is
some
social,
cultural,
or
intellectual
learning,
primarily
in
medical
education,
focusing
on
what
41 value
in
the
work
of
solving
it.
Jonassen
(2007)
later
defined
a
works
and
why.
Considering
evidence
through
a
theoretical
42 typology
of
problems
that
hinges
on
the
problem’s
structure
lens
of
cognitive
constructivism,
they
concluded
that
activation
43 and
aspects
of
the
problem
solver.
We
use
this
to
differentiate
of
prior
knowledge
occurs
during
initial
discussion
of
a
44 questions
from
problems.
A
question
is
well-‐structured,
has
problem
in
small
groups,
and
elaboration
occurs
while
45 one
correct
answer,
and
is
objective
in
what
knowledge
is
students
solve
the
problem.
Considering
evidence
through
a
46 required
to
answer
it.
On
the
other
hand,
a
problem
is
ill-‐
lens
of
situational
interest,
they
concluded
that
problems
drive
47 structured,
does
not
have
one
correct
answer,
and
contains
learning
by
generating
situational
interest.
48 insufficient
information.
As
such,
a
problem’s
solution
depends
Despite
the
benefits
of
problem-‐based
learning,
however,
a
49 on
what
assumptions
the
problem
solvers
make
to
contain
the
difficulty
remains
that
some
students
learn
more
while
solving
50 problem,
and
what
outside
information
the
problem
solvers
problems,
while
others
learn
less,
or
even
seem
not
to
learn.
51 deem
relevant
to
solving
it.
Studies
of
problem-‐based
learning
The
evidence
presented
by
the
reviews
cited
above
indicates
52 focus
on
teachers’
and
students’
work
and
learning
while
that
more
cognitive-‐related
knowledge
and
skills
increases
are
53 solving
“problems”
rather
than
“questions”.
well
documented,
while
the
more
process,
affect
and
54 Hmelo-‐Silver
(2004)
summarized
results
on
the
extent
to
interpersonal-‐related
outcomes
of
self-‐direction,
55 which
students
engaged
in
problem-‐based
learning
develop
collaboration,
and
intrinsic
motivation
are
less
well
56 documented.
Scott
(2014)
examined
differences
in
learning
57 outcomes
through
the
lens
of
achievement
goal
theory,
which
58 differentiates
between
a
learning
goal
orientation
vs.
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 1
4 when
faced
with
a
challenge.
Students
with
the
former
individuals
bring.
In
particular,
we
explored
the
epistemic
DOI: 10.1039/C8RP00047F
5 orientation
focus
on
mastery
by
engaging
in
challenging
games
that
took
hold
as
students
solved
substance
6 activities
with
an
attitude
that
capabilities
can
be
developed,
characterization
problems
in
chemistry.
As
problem-‐based
7 while
the
latter
is
characterized
by
avoiding
mistakes,
learning
gains
traction
in
chemistry,
we
are
interested
in
22 are
the
views
a
student
holds
on
the
nature
of
knowledge,
practice
in
chemistry
and
is
central
in
a
wide
variety
of
23 knowing,
and
learning.
An
example
of
an
epistemological
chemistry
problems.
Because
our
goals
are
positioned
in
24 commitment
that
students
can
hold
with
various
levels
of
providing
resources
for
teachers,
we
adopt
the
approach
to
25 strength
is
commitment
to
the
consistency
between
theory
learning
progressions
of
Acher
and
Arcà
(2014)
to
organize
our
26 and
evidence
(Zeineddin
&
Abd-‐El-‐Khalick,
2010).
Tuminaro
analysis,
in
particular
to
enable
us
to
draw
inferences
from
the
27 and
Redish
(2007)
suggested
that,
for
physics
students,
results
about
teaching
acts
that
may
be
productive
for
28 differences
in
learning
outcomes
can
be
partially
understood
advancing
students’
problem
solving
in
chemistry.
In
29 by
paying
attention
to
underlying
epistemological
assumptions
motivating
and
framing
this
study,
we
rely
on
a
number
of
30 that
constrain
the
approaches
students
take
to
solving
different
resources
that
introduce
terminology.
To
help
31 problems
while
working
on
them.
They
proposed
the
notion
of
readers
orient
to
this
terminology,
Table
1
summarizes
the
32 epistemic
games
as
a
“useful
way
of
analyzing
students’
main
terms
that
are
used
throughout
this
paper.
33 problem
solving
behavior
in
terms
of
locally
coherent
goal-‐
34 oriented
activities”
(op.
cit.,
p.
1).
Redish
defined
an
epistemic
Epistemological
framing
35 game
as
“a
coherent
activity
that
uses
particular
kinds
of
Redish
(2004)
proposed
epistemological
frames
as
an
idea
36 knowledge
and
processes
associated
with
that
knowledge
to
commensurate
with
framing
in
linguistics
and
anthropology.
37 create
knowledge
or
solve
a
problem”
(Redish,
2004,
p.
30).
In
Epistemological
framing
in
learning
describes
a
person’s
view
38 the
resources
framework
within
which
this
approach
to
39 studying
learning
falls
(Hammer
et
al.,
2005),
epistemic
games
Table
1.
Terminology
used.
40 are
considered
epistemological
resources
that
people
use
Term
Brief
definition
41 when
constructing
knowledge.
Working
in
the
same
resources
Epistemological
A
person’s
view
of
what
is
expected
or
42 framework,
Hutchinson
and
Hammer
(2010)
also
studied
the
frame
going
on
in
a
certain
situation
with
respect
43 general
epistemological
framing
of
students
studying
physics
to
knowing
or
learning
44 in
a
preservice
elementary
education
course
and
found
that
Epistemic
game
A
pattern
of
activities
activated
in
a
45 there
were
two
main
frames
assumed
by
the
students.
An
coherent
manner
by
people
as
they
solve
46 unproductive
framing,
which
they
called
the
“classroom
problems
47 game”,
reflects
ways
of
working
in
which
students
behave
and
Structure
of
a
A
game’s
pattern
of
entry
and
ending
48 speak
as
if
“sanctioned
by
the
teacher
or
textbook”.
A
more
game
conditions,
and
the
specific
sequence
of
49 productive
framing,
which
they
termed
“making
sense
of
moves
in
between
50 phenomena”,
reflects
behaviors
in
which
students
try
to
Ontology
of
a
A
game’s
coherent
manner
of
combining
51 understand
their
observations.
These
two
different
ways
of
game
knowledge
base,
epistemic
form,
and
52 framing
by
students
during
high
school
genetics
classroom
epistemological
commitments
53 discussions
were
previously
described
by
Jiménez-‐Aleixandre
Knowledge
base
Sources
of
knowledge
on
which
a
person
54 et
al.
(2000)
as
“doing
the
lesson”
and
“doing
science”.
As
this
relies
while
solving
a
problem
55 work
precedes
that
of
Hutchinson
and
Hammer,
we
hereafter
Epistemic
form
A
mental
image
that
assists
in
guiding
a
56 adopt
Jiménez-‐Aleixandre’s
titles
for
these
two
frames.
problem-‐solving
process
57 Students
bring
individual
resources
to
group
problem
Epistemological
A
person’s
beliefs
about
the
character
of
58 solving.
Even
when
a
single
epistemic
game
may
take
root
in
a
commitments
knowledge,
knowing,
and
learning
59 group’s
process,
as
studied
by
Tuminaro
and
Redish
(2007),
60
2 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
4 respect
to
knowing
or
learning
(Scherr
&
Hammer,
2009).
development
of
15
chemistry
students
DOI: during
the
first
two
10.1039/C8RP00047F
5 When
an
individual
frames
a
situation,
she
or
he
brings
a
years
of
university
education.
This
instrument
measures
6 structure
of
expectations
about
what
should
or
could
happen,
students’
views
toward
seven
cluster
areas
as
unfavorable
or
7 what
information
to
attend
to,
and
what
actions
are
favorable:
concepts,
effort,
laboratory,
mathematics
links,
22 example,
when
students
who
were
working
in
groups
of
four
model
cautioned
against
tying
sophistication
to
one
stance
23 were
reading
from
a
common
worksheet,
they
exhibited
quiet
over
another
(Elby
&
Hammer,
2001).
These
authors
levied
24 and
neutral
behaviors
with
expectations
of
minimal
interaction
two
lines
of
criticism
against
the
consensus
view
that
25 except
for
check-‐ins,
but
did
not
attend
to
details
of
each
epistemological
sophistication
is
absolute
and
measurable
26 others’
words,
some
of
which
were
muttered.
In
this
outside
of
the
context
in
which
it
is
relevant.
First,
they
argued
27 behavioral
mode,
members
of
the
group
appeared
to
adopt
a
that
“the
student
epistemology
literature
fails
to
distinguish
28 framing
consistent
with
viewing
knowledge
as
provided
by
between
the
correctness
and
productivity
of
an
29 experts.
In
contrast,
when
the
students
were
engaged
in
epistemological
belief”
(op
cit.,
p.
555).
Their
counterargument
30 discussion,
they
exhibited
considerable
gesturing
with
was
that
“a
belief
is
productive
if
it
generates
behavior,
31 animated
tones
and
eye
contact,
while
they
sat
straighter
and
attitudes,
and
habits
that
lead
to
‘progress’
as
defined
by
the
32 spoke
more
clearly.
Their
expectations
appeared
consistent
in
given
person
or
community”.
Second,
they
argued
that
33 desiring
understanding,
focusing
attention
on
each
other,
“according
to
the
consensus
view
as
reflected
in
commonly
34 interest
in
each
other’s
ideas,
and
both
intellectual
and
used
surveys,
epistemological
sophistication
consists
of
35 emotional
engagement.
In
this
behavioral
mode,
some
believing
certain
blanket
generalizations
about
the
nature
of
36 students
seemed
to
adopt
a
framing
consistent
with
having
a
knowledge
and
learning,
generalizations
that
do
not
attend
to
37 role
in
the
construction
of
knowledge.
Recently,
working
in
the
context”.
Rather,
they
proposed
that
blanket
assertions
like
38 same
framework
of
resources,
Watkins
et
al.
(2017)
added
to
this
are
“neither
correct
nor
productive”.
These
lines
of
39 this
an
insight
that
a
position
of
not-‐understanding,
while
criticism
contributed
to
a
resources
view
of
epistemological
40 often
discounted
in
classrooms,
could
be
valuable
for
learning,
framing,
in
which
such
framing
is
locally
coherent,
as
a
41 as
scientists
recognize
the
value
of
confusion,
ambiguity,
and
dynamic
system
in
which
“coherences
emerge
from
the
42 uncertainty.
activations
and
interactions
of
many
cognitive
elements”
43 Students’
epistemologies
have
been
studied
to
some
(Scherr
&
Hammer,
2009,
p.
151).
An
apt
example
of
this
is
the
44 extent
in
chemistry.
Pulmones
(2010)
studied
chemistry
study
by
Watkins
et
al.
(2017),
showing
that
a
position
of
not-‐
45 students’
epistemological
beliefs
about
science
and
chemistry
understanding
can
be
productive.
This
view
is
also
consistent
46 and
linkages
to
the
students’
metacognitive
behavior
in
with
the
theoretical
commitments
in
our
chemical
thinking
47 learning
chemistry.
Metacognition
is
thinking
about
one’s
learning
progression
work
(Sevian
&
Talanquer,
2014).
48 thinking,
and
thus
should
have
a
relationship
with
Our
central
hypothesis,
stated
earlier,
is
consistent
with
49 epistemological
beliefs,
which
are
largely
implicit,
i.e.,
the
assertions
of
Elby
and
Hammer
(2001).
We
speculate
that
50 unrecognized
by
the
person.
Pulmones
differentiated
between
some
epistemic
games
are
more
foundational
while
others
51 naïve
and
sophisticated
epistemologies
as
measured
by
the
begin
to
take
shape
later
in
the
educational
process.
Thus,
the
52 Epistemological
Beliefs
Assessment
for
Physical
Science
epistemic
games
on
which
a
person
relies
may
depend
upon
53 instrument
(Elby
et
al.,
2001).
He
found
that
students
who
he
the
resources
that
she
or
he
has
built
up
over
years
of
54 measured
to
have
more
sophisticated
epistemological
beliefs
education.
Analysis
of
our
findings
from
the
perspective
of
the
55 also
demonstrated
high
levels
of
metacognitive
behavior
as
chemical
thinking
learning
progression
(briefly
described
56 well
as
performed
at
consistently
high
cognitive
levels
as
below)
enables
us
to
consider
ways
that
teachers
can
leverage
57 measured
by
Bloom’s
taxonomy.
Mazzarone
and
Grove
(2013)
the
productivity
in
how
students
rely
on
different
epistemic
58 used
the
Chemistry
Expectations
(CHEMX)
survey
(Grove
&
games
in
different
contexts.
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 3
4 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
4 In
this
study,
we
analyze
our
findings
from
a
perspective
ideas
are
articulated.
Our
purpose
is
the
DOI: same
as
theirs:
we
10.1039/C8RP00047F
5 afforded
by
learning
progressions
research.
Learning
strive
to
“inform
our
LP
by
examining
the
extent
to
which
6 progressions
are
empirically
validatable
descriptions
of
how
different
materials
and
their
manipulations
provide
a
fruitful
7 students
develop
understanding
and
utility
of
big
ideas
across
phenomenological
anchorage
to
support
–
or
to
limit
–
22 practicing
chemistry.
We
recognize
that
progress
in
learning
productive
teaching
acts
that
would
advance
students’
23 follows
a
complex
and
dynamic
landscape
that
depends
on
chemical
thinking.
Learning
progressions
are
studied
in
cycles
24 many
variables,
including
the
experiences
a
student
has
had
of
validation
(Mohan,
Chen,
&
Anderson,
2009;
Sevian
et
al.,
25 and
the
context
in
which
a
student
is
engaging
in
the
practice
2014),
and
these
implications
then
create
hypotheses
for
a
26 of
chemistry.
We
consider
that
a
major
role
of
the
teacher
is
to
future
study
cycle
in
the
research.
27 interpret
ways
that
students
are
using
chemical
thinking,
and
28 respond
to
what
is
productive
in
these
ways,
in
order
to
help
Knowledge
bases
in
substance
characterization
29 guide
students
to
gain
access
to
and
proficiency
in
more
While
substance
characterization
is
highly
complex,
depending
30 scientific
ways
of
thinking
(Clinchot
et
al.,
2017;
Robertson,
on
many
variables
of
the
substance
under
study
and
a
wide
31 Scherr,
&
Hammer,
2016;
Thompson,
Windschitl,
&
Braaten,
variety
of
experimental
methods,
reporting
on
the
32 2013).
Taking
this
into
consideration,
we
follow
an
approach
characterization
of
chemical
substances
has
been
highly
33 developed
by
Acher
and
Arcà
(2014),
to
organize
our
analysis
conserved
throughout
the
history
of
chemistry
(Schummer,
34 around
three
elements
that
can
aid
in
the
design
of
teaching,
2003).
The
characterization
of
a
chemical
relies
on
the
idea
35 instructional
resources,
and
assessment:
(1)
students’
ideas,
that
every
substance
exhibits
at
least
one
property
that
makes
36 (2)
how
these
ideas
are
contextualized,
and
(3)
teaching
acts
it
unique
and
differentiable
from
other
substances
(Enke,
37 that
can
promote
and
sustain
students’
gradual
accumulation
2001).
Over
the
past
centuries,
substance
characterization
38 of
ways
of
thinking.
This
study
presents
students’
ways
of
reported
in
the
chemical
literature
has
consistently
included
39 approaching
substance
characterization
problems
in
16
the
method
of
preparation,
visual
characteristics,
solubility
in
40 contexts.
From
these,
we
draw
conjectures
about
teaching
various
solvents,
melting
or
boiling
point,
elemental
analysis,
41 acts
that
can
promote
learning.
and
exemplary
reactivities.
Chemical
structure
was
added
to
42 In
this
study,
we
build
upon
our
prior
work
(Ngai,
Sevian,
&
this
only
recently,
as
spectroscopic
methods
in
chemical
43 Talanquer,
2014;
Sevian
&
Talanquer,
2014)
in
which
we
analysis
offered
the
ability
to
differentiate
structure
from
44 clarified
the
first
design
element
of
Acher
and
Arcà
(2014),
composition.
Most
research
reports
of
substance
45 articulation
of
students’
intuitive
ideas,
through
a
review
of
characterization
still
include
all
of
these
items.
The
activity
of
46 the
history
and
philosophy
of
chemistry,
and
a
synthesis
of
substance
characterization
relies
mainly
on
ways
of
identifying
47 students’
ideas
across
a
wide
variety
of
research
on
students’
and
differentiating
chemical
substances,
which
we
have
called
48 thinking
about
chemical
substances.
These
are
reviewed
below
chemical
identity
thinking
(Ngai,
Sevian
&
Talanquer,
2014).
In
49 as
the
knowledge
bases
of
substance
characterization.
Our
practicing
chemical
identity
thinking,
both
chemists
and
50 characterization
of
knowledge
bases
fits
with
our
perspective
students
of
chemistry
use
properties
of
a
sample
to
identify
51 on
learning
that
underlies
the
hypothesis
of
this
study,
that
the
potential
classes
to
which
the
substance
may
belong,
and/or
to
52 knowledge
bases
brought
to
learning
and
reasoning
are
differentiate
it
from
other
substances
in
order
to
rule
out
53 accumulated
and
become
more
qualified
as
a
person’s
reliance
possible
identities.
54 upon
them
grows
more
sophisticated.
We
also
pay
attention
To
better
understand
the
chemical
identity
thinking
of
55 to
more
general
knowledge
bases,
i.e.,
science
classroom
learners,
we
conducted
an
extensive
review
of
research
on
56 activities
and
life
experiences
outside
school.
We
make
use
of
how
students
think
about
substances
(Ngai,
Sevian,
&
57 an
instrument,
called
the
chemical
substance
inventory
survey
Talanquer,
2014).
The
review
resulted
in
a
hypothesized
58 (Ngai
&
Sevian,
2017),
that
provides
material
contexts,
the
learning
progression
of
chemical
identity,
which
organized
the
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 5
4 accumulate
with
training
in
the
discipline
of
chemistry.
The
and
D).
Each
set
presents
four
problems
tDOI:hat
10.1039/C8RP00047F
involve
substance
5 hypothetical
progression
clarified
four
main
ways
of
thinking,
characterization:
two
in
which
a
substance
must
be
identified
6 or
knowledge
bases,
on
which
people
may
rely
as
they
make
(odd-‐numbered
problems),
and
two
in
which
substances
must
7 decisions
about
chemical
identity:
be
differentiated
(even-‐numbered
problems).
All
16
problems
22 they
make
while
reasoning.
For
example,
an
expert
chemist
This
study
examines
the
following
research
questions
and
sub-‐
23 may
identify
a
brown
upholstery
material
on
a
sofa
as
a
questions:
24 synthetic
polymer,
rather
than
leather
cowhide,
based
upon
its
1. What,
if
any,
epistemic
games
appear
to
be
relied
upon
by
25 shininess,
smell
and
tactile
feel,
which
are
object-‐relevant
individuals
as
they
solve
a
variety
of
substance
26 properties
belonging
to
the
objectivization
knowledge
base.
characterization
problems?
27 The
chemist
knows
that,
in
contrast
to
a
synthetic
polymer,
1a. What
is
the
structure
of
each
epistemic
game?
28 leather
contains
an
enormous
variety
of
different
substances
1b. What
is
the
ontology
of
each
epistemic
game?
29 (compositionism)
and
has
been
through
a
treatment
process
Specifically,
what
knowledge
bases,
epistemic
30 that
alters
the
surface
by
chemical
means
(interactionism),
forms,
and
epistemological
commitments
are
relied
31 leaving
residues
that
contribute
a
characteristic
odor
that
is
upon
in
each
game?
32 carried
by
each
residue
(principlism).
Thus,
the
chemist
could
2. What
patterns
emerge
in
the
epistemic
games
relied
upon
33 consider
other
ways
to
identify
the
upholstery
material
(e.g.,
by
students?
34 characteristic
reactivities
or
elemental
analysis
of
a
sample),
2a. In
what
ways
does
the
use
of
epistemic
games
35 but
it
is
simpler
and
probably
sufficiently
accurate
to
rely
upon
change
across
educational
levels?
36 object-‐relevant
properties.
A
novice
chemist
may
perform
the
2b. In
what
ways
do
different
epistemic
games
appear
37 same
objectivization-‐based
identification
of
sofa
upholstery
to
depend
on
the
material
contexts
of
the
38 material
as
the
chemist
does
without
recognizing
why
this
way
problems?
39 of
thinking
is
justifiable
or
having
access
to
other
views.
Answering
these
research
questions
allows
us
to
advance
a
40
cycle
in
the
learning
progression
research
by
taking
into
41 Chemical
substances
inventory
(CSI)
survey
consideration
the
three
design
elements
of
Acher
and
Arcà
42 The
activity
of
substance
characterization
relies
on
ways
of
(2014).
In
this
cycle,
we
refine
our
understanding
of
students’
43 identifying
and
differentiating
chemical
substances.
The
CSI
ideas,
clarify
ways
in
which
material
contexts
shape
and
44 survey
was
based
on
our
hypothesized
learning
progression
of
constrain
the
articulation
of
those
ideas,
and
derive
new
45 chemical
identity,
and
designed
to
capture
how
students
hypotheses
about
teaching
acts
that
may
support
students
to
46 identify
and
differentiate
chemical
substances
(Ngai
&
Sevian,
strengthen
their
chemical
thinking.
47 2017)
in
substance
characterization
problems.
The
instrument
48 was
developed
through
a
design-‐based
process
involving
49 multiple
stakeholders
and
was
based
on
our
hypothesized
Method
50 learning
progression
of
chemical
identity
(Ngai,
Sevian
&
Sample
51 Talanquer,
2014).
A
rigorous
qualitative
approach
involved
52 The
sample
included
middle
and
high
school
students
from
students,
teachers,
educational
researchers,
and
disciplinary
53 multiple
schools
in
an
urban
public
school
district,
and
experts
as
stakeholders
to
develop
a
suite
of
four
classroom
54 undergraduate
students
enrolled
in
first-‐year
chemistry,
formative
assessments
that
ask
students
to
identify
and
55 organic
chemistry,
and
physical
chemistry
courses
at
a
public
differentiate
chemical
substances
in
different
contexts.
These
56 university
in
the
same
city
in
the
Northeastern
United
States.
were
shown
to
be
valid
and
reliable
in
use
with
students
from
57 The
student
populations
served
by
these
educational
grade
8
(age
13)
through
fourth
year
of
university
education.
58 institutions
is
diverse.
In
the
school
district,
32%
identify
as
59 African
American/Black,
9%
as
Asian,
14%
as
Caucasian/White
60
6 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
22
chlorophyll
is.
filled
with
a
gas,
how
of?
(shown
a
photo
of
an
unidentified
transparent
23
could
you
determine
if
it
is
irregular
shaped
shiny
liquid
in
a
glass
is
ethanol?
24 oxygen
gas?
gray
metal
block
with
25 texture)
26 Q4.
Substance
AQ4
(chlorophyll
sources):
BQ4
(oxygen
vs.
carbon
CQ4
(soda
can):
Could
this
DQ4
(ethanol
boiling):
27 differentiation
Is
the
chlorophyll
isolated
dioxide):
How
could
you
object
be
made
of
the
What
is
in
the
bubbles
28 from
a
forest
tree
the
tell
the
difference
same
substance
or
a
that
form
when
you
heat
a
29 same
or
different
from
between
carbon
dioxide
different
one?
(shown
a
pot
of
ethanol
and
it
30 chlorophyll
from
pond
and
oxygen
gases?
photo
of
a
metal
soda
can
begins
to
boil?
31 algae?
with
no
label,
and
32 referring
to
photo
in
CQ3)
33
(non-‐Hispanic),
42%
as
Hispanic/Latinx,
and
3%
as
other
races
and
4
students
were
interviewed.
There
was
no
element
of
34 or
ethnicities.
(Note:
Latinx
is
gaining
usage
in
research
selection
other
than
when
the
interviewer
was
available,
and
35 literature.
It
is
a
gender-‐neutral
form,
where
the
-‐x
is
written
in
in
this
way
a
sampling
was
produced
across
the
range
of
times
36 place
of
the
-‐o/-‐a
masculine
or
feminine
forms
of
adjectives
in
that
the
students
took
to
complete
the
survey.
University
37 Spanish
and
Portuguese.)
At
the
university,
15%
identify
as
students
in
general
and
organic
chemistry
courses
completed
38 African
American/Black,
12%
as
Asian,
38%
as
the
survey
at
the
conclusion
of
their
laboratory
period
and
39 Caucasian/White
(non-‐Hispanic),
12%
as
Hispanic/Latinx,
and
were
similarly
interviewed
with
this
approach
immediately
40 23%
as
other
races
or
ethnicities.
Since
a
sampling
of
CSI
afterward.
Physical
chemistry
students
were
also
invited
41 survey
participants
was
interviewed,
and
almost
all
students
in
across
survey
completion
times
to
interview
and
signed
up
for
42 the
classes
visited
in
the
primary
study
participated
in
the
pre-‐determined
times
since
the
course
did
not
have
a
lab
43 study,
it
is
expected
that
the
participant
demographics
component.
Most
interviews
of
these
students
were
44 reflected
the
demographics
of
the
schools
and
university.
completed
the
same
or
next
day
and
all
were
completed
45 As
described
previously
(Ngai
&
Sevian,
2017),
the
CSI
within
three
days
of
completing
the
survey.
The
study
was
46 survey
was
administered
via
computer-‐based
platform
carried
out
as
a
secondary
analysis
(further
described
below),
47 (GoogleForms).
To
distribute
the
survey
with
equal
likelihood
using
interview
and
survey
response
data
from
a
primary
study
48 of
receiving
any
survey
set,
students
were
asked
to
select
their
(Ngai
&
Sevian,
2017).
All
students
aged
18
and
older
49 birth
month,
and
then
an
algorithm
matched
each
of
the
four
consented
to
participate,
and
students
under
18
assented
with
50 survey
sets
to
three
birth
months.
A
judgment
of
whether
the
parent
consent
(UMass
Boston
IRB
protocols
2012-‐102
and
51 distribution
is
truly
random
may
depend
on
the
reader’s
views
2012-‐133).
The
participants’
voluntary
informed
consent
52 on
astrology.
Participants
at
the
middle
and
high
school
levels
covers
the
present
analysis.
53 participated
in
interviews
immediately
after
completing
the
Middle
and
high
school
participants
were
from
the
classes
54 CSI
survey.
While
students
were
not
randomly
sampled,
an
of
many
teachers
in
a
variety
of
schools.
They
were
55 effort
was
made
to
create
an
unbiased
sample.
Students
were
interviewed
during
their
science
classes.
For
this
reason,
some
56 invited
to
interview
as
the
interviewer
became
available
and
as
students
may
have
privileged
science
ways
of
talking.
57 students
completed
the
survey
on
which
the
interview
was
However,
since
students
came
from
multiple
classes
and
58 based.
In
each
class
of
15
to
30
consented
students,
between
2
schools,
they
did
not
have
common
science
lessons.
The
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 7
4 first-‐year
university
chemistry,
organic
chemistry,
and
physical
initial
responses
to
the
CSI
survey,
as
well
DOI:as
new
ideas
that
10.1039/C8RP00047F
5 chemistry.
During
the
data
collection
weeks,
the
first-‐year
participants
introduced
during
the
interviews.
Since
the
6 chemistry
students
were
engaged
in
laboratory
activities
about
primary
study
was
carefully
planned,
including
semi-‐structured
7 density
and
stoichiometry,
and
the
organic
chemistry
students
interviews
with
a
sample
of
students,
with
students’
reasoning
22 participants
included
in
the
secondary
analysis,
organized
by
interviews,
thereby
maintaining
anonymity
of
the
participants
23 educational
level
and
CSI
survey
set.
Each
participant
shown
in
for
secondary
analysis.
24 the
table
was
interviewed
about
all
four
problems
in
the
A
potential
limitation
with
this
secondary
analysis
is
that
25 survey
set,
so
the
total
number
of
problem-‐solving
instances
the
researchers
who
analyzed
the
data
were
not
present
for
26 analyzed
was
four
times
the
numbers
shown
in
Table
4.
the
data
collection.
Often
in
qualitative
research,
there
is
27
knowledge
that
only
the
interviewer
learns
while
conducting
28 Secondary
analysis
the
interviews.
Some
of
this
may
remain
implicit
and
29 This
study
was
carried
out
as
a
secondary
analysis
of
unacknowledged
by
the
interviewer,
but
could
influence
the
30 interviews
and
survey
responses
that
were
collected
for
analysis
in
a
positive
manner.
In
the
case
of
this
study,
this
31 investigating
the
validity
of
the
CSI
survey
(Ngai
&
Sevian,
possibility
is
diminished,
though
not
altogether
extinguished,
32 2017).
Secondary
data
analysis
typically
introduces
two
issues.
since
the
interviewer
followed
a
protocol
designed
to
pursue
33 The
first
of
these
is
the
validity
of
the
use
of
data
beyond
the
students’
explanations
of
their
answers
to
the
CSI
survey
and
34 primary
study
(Heaton,
2008).
De-‐identified
interview
did
not
explicitly
question
the
students
about
their
35 transcripts
and
typed
CSI
survey
responses
from
52
epistemological
beliefs.
36 participants
in
six
courses
across
a
nine-‐year
educational
span
A
related
point
that
may
be
considered
with
the
secondary
37 (grade
8
through
fourth
year
of
tertiary
education
in
analysis
is
that
epistemology
was
not
directly
probed
during
38 chemistry)
were
obtained
through
informal
data
sharing
the
interviews.
Researchers
studying
metacognition,
which
is
39 (Heaton,
2008).
The
de-‐identified
transcripts
were
produced
linked
to
epistemology,
have
consistently
reported
that
40 from
audio-‐recorded
interviews
of
the
sample
of
students
who
metacognition
is
not
directly
observable
(Sperling
et
al.,
2002)
41 participated
in
the
CSI
survey
when
it
was
administered
during
and
self-‐reporting
is
unreliable
(Schraw
&
Moshman,
1995).
42 science
classes
in
2016.
The
interviews
followed
a
semi-‐ Specifically,
researchers
acknowledge
that
when
students
are
43 structured
protocol,
initially
asking
participants
to
explain
their
asked
to
self-‐report
their
metacognitive
strategies
as
they
are
44 written
answers
on
the
CSI
survey.
This
allowed
the
performing,
they
can
be
triggered
to
rely
upon
the
strategies
45 interviewer
to
probe
any
new
thinking
that
arose
during
the
they
identify.
However,
they
may
espouse
these
strategies
for
46 interview
that
was
not
in
a
participant’s
initial
survey
reasons
other
than
actually
relying
upon
them
in
that
moment,
47 responses.
Though
probing
for
problem
solving
was
not
the
e.g.,
perceiving
that
a
particular
strategy
is
generally
beneficial
48 primary
purpose
of
the
interviews,
the
transcripts
were
rich
in
or
demonstrates
a
certain
level
of
quality.
In
other
words,
self-‐
49
50 Table
4.
Interview
and
typed
survey
responses
sample.
51
CSI
survey
set
52 Course
and
educational
level
A
B
C
D
Total
53 Grade
8
/
middle
school
science
(M)
0
1
4
2
7
54 Grade
10
or
11
chemistry
(H)
2
3
1
3
9
55 Advanced
Placement
Chemistry
(AP)
2
2
1
2
7
56 First-‐year
university
general
chemistry
(F)
4
4
1
2
11
57 University
organic
chemistry
(R)
3
2
2
3
10
58 University
physical
chemistry
(P)
2
2
3
1
8
59 Total
13
14
12
13
52
60
8 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
4 socially
desirable
behaviors
(Veenman,
2012).
Thus,
the
fact
that
students
seemed
to
solve
a
problem
DOI:that
was
different
10.1039/C8RP00047F
5 that
the
interviews
did
not
probe
epistemology
is
a
strength
of
from
the
one
originally
posed.
This
often
occurs
when
people
6 our
study
design.
rely
on
heuristics
to
answer
questions
and
solve
problems
7
(Talanquer,
2014),
so
we
also
began
clarifying
the
alternative
22 considered
as
episodes
of
problem
solving.
The
student’s
overall
approaches,
thus
we
also
began
to
identify
and
justify
23 typed
survey
responses
to
that
problem
were
added
to
the
overall
epistemological
framing
as
either
“doing
the
lesson”
or
24 beginning
of
each
problem-‐solving
episode,
since
the
“doing
science”
(Jiménez-‐Aleixandre
et
al.,
2000).
After
the
25 interviewer
frequently
repeated
specific
words
written
by
the
first
10
inter-‐rater
sessions
between
the
authors,
a
consistent
26 participant
on
the
CSI
survey
to
begin
each
interview
segment,
set
of
candidate
epistemic
games
emerged.
From
this
point,
27 and
then
the
participant
additionally
referred
to
what
was
we
selected
larger
sets
(10,
20,
40)
for
independent
analysis
28 written
but
sometimes
without
providing
enough
information
and
inter-‐rater
discussions.
We
continued
to
bring
problem-‐
29 to
identify
the
reference.
In
some
cases,
the
participant
solving
episodes
to
group
meetings
with
others
to
strengthen
30 brought
up
new
ideas
that
were
not
in
the
participant’s
the
construct
validity.
31 original
CSI
survey
response.
When
these
were
tied
to
the
After
all
data
had
been
analyzed
and
the
epistemic
games
32 student’s
problem
solving,
this
information
was
retained
in
the
were
stable
and
sufficiently
characterized,
one
of
the
authors
33 problem-‐solving
episode.
Toward
the
end
of
the
interview
re-‐analyzed
all
of
the
data
without
looking
at
the
original
34 about
each
problem,
the
interviewer
often
asked,
“Is
there
any
consensus
agreements.
During
this
phase,
consistent
metadata
35 other
information
you
would
like
to
know
in
order
to
decide
were
generated
for
each
problem-‐solving
episode
in
order
to
36 whether
or
not
it's
the
same
substance?”
In
four
of
these
facilitate
comparison
for
later
consistency
checking.
The
37 instances,
the
student
started
talking
about
an
entirely
new
metadata
had
the
following
components:
participant
and
38 idea
that
was
not
related
to
the
problem.
In
these
four
cases,
problem
code
(e.g.,
R10B-‐Q4),
narrative
of
student’s
approach,
39 this
latter
part
of
the
interview
was
not
included
in
the
cue,
alternative
problem
(if
any)
that
the
student
appeared
to
40 problem-‐solving
episode
analyzed.
In
addition,
in
one
of
the
translate
(Talanquer,
2014),
general
knowledge
base
(e.g.,
41 four
problems
about
which
one
student
was
interviewed,
the
personal
experience,
chemistry
laboratory),
chemical
identity
42 student
said,
“I
don’t
know,
I
just
made
it
up,”
and
then
knowledge
base
(Ngai,
Sevian,
&
Talanquer,
2014),
description
43 concluded
the
interview.
This
student
engaged
in
the
interview
of
the
epistemic
form
that
aided
the
student’s
solution
of
the
44 on
the
three
previous
problems.
The
first
three
problem-‐ problem,
epistemic
game
that
best
fits,
organization
of
the
45 solving
episodes
of
this
student
were
analyzed,
but
the
fourth
narrative
into
the
moves
of
the
game,
and
justification
(if
any)
46 was
not.
In
total,
we
analyzed
207
problem-‐solving
episodes
for
why
this
game
was
the
best
fit
and
why
other
potential
fits
47 from
52
students
(see
Tables
2
and
3).
were
rejected,
and
epistemological
commitments
with
48 Both
authors
independently
analyzed
all
data.
We
justification.
To
illustrate
this,
the
metadata
from
an
example,
49 compared
results
and
discussed
disagreements
until
reaching
R10
solving
B-‐Q4,
are
provided
in
the
Appendix.
50 consensus.
We
did
this
in
stages
that
included
increasingly
After
reaching
consensus
on
all
of
the
data,
we
considered
51 larger
numbers
of
problem-‐solving
episodes.
We
randomly
the
different
epistemic
games,
interrogating
their
uniqueness.
52 selected
sets
of
problem-‐solving
episodes
(initially
5
per
set,
Tuminaro
and
Redish
(2007)
found
that
each
of
their
epistemic
53 and
then
later
larger
sets)
by
sorting
in
numerical
order
the
games
exhibited
structural
and
ontological
stability.
This
phase
54 code
numbers
of
the
participants.
With
each,
we
identified
the
of
our
analysis
process
resulted
in
merging
a
few
of
our
55 cue(s)
the
participant
took
from
the
problem,
the
knowledge
candidate
games
into
epistemic
games
that
shared
these
56 base
on
which
the
student
appeared
to
rely,
and
the
sequence
stabilities
when
characterized
in
a
more
general
way.
This
57 of
moves
associated
with
the
problem
solving
approach,
and
resulted
in
6
unique
games.
However,
one
of
them
(which
we
58 we
characterized
the
epistemic
form
that
the
student
seemed
called
the
Consult
Authority
game),
in
which
students
59 immediately
stated
that
they
would
ask
the
teacher,
professor,
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 9
4 had
no
other
ideas,
only
occurred
in
2
instances.
Due
to
its
continued
to
construct
or
consolidate
constructs
in
follow-‐up
DOI: 10.1039/C8RP00047F
5 infrequent
occurrence
in
our
data,
we
could
not
be
sure
it
is
a
and
assessment
situations,
where
the
construct
continued
to
6 game
consistently
relied
upon
by
students,
so
we
do
not
have
an
individual
flavour”
(pp.
63-‐64).
7 report
it
in
our
findings.
The
remaining
11
instances
were
a
10 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
4 chloroplasts.”
(Interviewer
responds:
“Ok”.)
“Are
they?”
natural
state.
I
have
never
seen
silver
that
way,
so
I
don’t
DOI: 10.1039/C8RP00047F
5 (F04A-‐Q3)
know
what
it’s
going
to
be
like.
But
I
do
know
that
we
talk
6 Students
operating
in
a
doing
the
lesson
frame
also
about
in
class
that
elements
can
have
different
forms
7 referred
to
authorities
(what
the
teacher
said,
how
the
based
on…is
it
ions
or
isotopes?
I
think
it’s
isotopes,
but
it
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 11
4 algae.
Interviewer:
You
said,
I
could
assume
it’s
some
sort
of
DOI: 10.1039/C8RP00047F
5 alcohol
and
like
if
it
evaporates
more
rapidly
compared
to
a
Interviewer:
You
said
the
chlorophyll
from
the
tree
is
6 glass
of
water
filled
with
the
same
volume
of
liquid.
Also,
I
the
same
as
the
chlorophyll
from
the
algae
and
they
should
7 could
probably
tell
by
the
smell.
However,
I
am
not
sure
be
the
same
as
they
both
have
the
same
function
to
22 ethanol
(entry
condition)
and
noticed
that
this
is
in
common
Interviewer:
Okay,
and
so
if
something
has
the
same
23 with
the
class
of
alcohols
(connection
move).
H08
then
began
shape
and
the
same
size,
that
means
it’s
the
same?
24 recalling
other
properties
belonging
to
the
class
of
alcohols:
R05:
Yeah,
I
think
so
because
it
have
the
same
name
it
25 they
evaporate
more
rapidly
than
water,
they
have
a
should
be
the
same
thing.
26 characteristic
(bad)
odor.
In
the
properties
move,
the
student
Interviewer:
Okay,
so
they
wouldn’t
be
different
from
27 then
considered
other
substances
that
belong
to
this
class
each
other
because
they’re
both
called
chlorophyll?
28 (rubbing
alcohol,
nail
polish),
and
through
this
reasoned
how
R05:
No,
they
won’t
be
different
they
should
be
the
29 to
tell
if
the
unknown
substance
is
an
alcohol
(exit
condition).
same,
must
be
the
same.
30 Notably,
the
student
also
did
more
sense
making
in
qualifying
R05
initially
cued
on
the
tree
and
algae
(entry
condition),
and
31 this
by
saying
that
it
could
be
a
different
kind
of
alcohol.
considered
their
chlorophylls
to
be
the
same
because
they
32 In
contrast
to
the
productive
epistemological
framing
of
have
the
same
function.
This
commonality
comes
about
33 H08,
the
Compare
game
approach
of
R05
on
problem
A-‐Q4
through
the
association
of
chlorophyll
to
photosynthesis
34 manifested
as
doing
the
lesson.
The
A-‐Q4
problem
asks
the
(connection
move).
The
student
then
named
this
association:
35 student
whether
chlorophyll
isolated
from
a
forest
tree
is
the
they
both
produce
energy
through
photosynthesis.
The
36 student
then
turns
to
37 providing
properties
of
the
38 association
as
the
properties
39 move:
in
animals
the
40 mitochondria
are
the
same,
41 animal
cells
are
eukaryotic
so
42 they
have
the
same
structure,
43 the
structure
of
plant
cells
is
44 square,
the
organization
of
45 organelles
is
the
same,
shape
46 and
size
are
the
same.
The
47 student
concludes
that
the
48 chlorophylls
are
the
same
49 (exit
condition).
R05
did
not
50 attend
to
any
coherence
51 between
these
properties.
52
53 The
Prototype
Mapping
game.
54 The
Prototype
Mapping
game
55 (Figure
2),
in
both
the
doing
56 science
and
doing
the
lesson
57
manifestations,
involves
58 making
a
claim
about
the
Figure
2.
Schematic
diagram
of
the
structure
of
the
Prototype
Mapping
game.
category
to
which
a
substance
59
60
12 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
22 we
would
need
to
use
different
specifications
because
it
is
performed
in
the
Chem
I
course
(in
which
testing
for
oxygen
23 soft
with
the
temperature
it
can
expand
or
decrease.
So
involves
detecting
whether
a
glowing
splint
glows
more
24 that
was
my
thinking,
and
I
know
also
from
cashing
it
in
brightly
when
placed
in
a
test
tube
where
oxygen
might
be
a
25 when
you
have
scrap
aluminum
it’s
always
thrown
in
the
product
of
a
reaction),
which
the
student
generalized
to
26 soft
metal
pile
at
the
scrap
yard.
So
that
was
the
lighting
a
match
and
putting
it
over
a
container
filled
with
27 association
I
made
and
just
looking
at
the
surface
of
this
oxygen
and
then
opening
the
lid
of
the
container.
This
led
the
28 image
it
looks
like
that
it
was
cut
one
way
to
make
it
student
to
talking
about
combustion
in
a
car
engine,
which
the
29 circular
cut
another
way
inside
and
then
maybe
scraped
student
seemed
to
consider
as
related
to
determining
whether
30 along
the
edges,
which
made
me
think
that
it
was
easy
to
a
gas
in
a
cylinder
is
oxygen.
Students
who
relied
on
this
game
31 shape
and
soft.
in
a
doing
the
lesson
frame
often
tended
toward
hyperbole
in
32 This
student
identified
the
color
and
shape
of
the
block,
and
the
last
move,
e.g.,
“because
normally
like
the
teachers,
they're
33 noticed
that
it
appeared
to
have
been
broken
several
times
mad
tired
in
the
mornings
and
they
always
have
a
cup
of
34 (entry
condition).
From
this,
the
student
placed
the
block
into
coffee”
(reasoning
provided
by
H03
when
solving
problem
C-‐
35 a
category
of
soft
metals
(category
determination
move),
and
Q1
about
how
to
help
someone
recognize
caffeine).
36 then
worked
on
confirming
this
through
how
aluminum
is
37 (category
confirmation
move):
aluminum
gets
thrown
in
the
The
Inference
game.
The
Inference
game
(Figure
3)
most
often
38 soft
metal
pile
at
scrap
yard,
it
cuts
like
a
soft
metal.
Based
on
occurred
as
more
than
one
inference-‐evidence-‐judgment
cycle
39 these,
the
student
also
generalized
through
these
properties,
(39
of
42
instances
included
multiple
cycles).
This
game
has
40 e.g.,
speculating
on
how
the
object
was
cut
based
on
evidence
structural
similarity
to
argumentation,
which
has
been
deeply
41 in
the
picture.
Throughout
this
process,
the
student
studied
in
K-‐12
science
education
research
(e.g.,
Berland
&
42 demonstrated
back-‐and-‐forth
sense
making,
sometimes
McNeill,
2010;
Sampson
&
Clark,
2009).
In
learning
scientific
43 expressing
awareness
of
his
or
her
thinking:
“so
that
was
the
argumentation,
students
typically
progress
from
making
claims
44 association
I
made”
and
“which
made
me
think
that
it
was
easy
that
are
defended,
but
not
with
evidence,
to
defending
claims
45 to
shape
and
soft”.
with
evidence
and
reasoning,
as
well
as
advancing
46 Some
students
also
used
the
Prototype
Mapping
game
counterclaims
which
are
rebutted
convincingly
(Berland
&
47 with
framing
consistent
with
doing
the
lesson.
For
example,
McNeill,
2010).
Whenf
students
framed
the
situation
as
doing
48 R10
followed
a
stream-‐of-‐consciousness
approach
to
working
the
lesson,
they
inferred
using
associations,
whereas
when
49 on
the
problem,
with
an
overall
structure
of
mapping
to
a
they
took
a
doing
science
stance
toward
the
situation,
they
50 prototype.
employed
causality
in
inferences.
The
difference
occurs
in
the
51 Interviewer:
You
said,
we
could
light
a
match
and
open
second
move.
Cycles
were
always
linked
by
a
question
that
52 the
container
and
thrown
the
match
in.
If
the
fire
connected
the
evidence
of
one
cycle
to
the
property
and
53 increases,
then
it’s
oxygen.
This
is
a
very
unsafe
way
to
do
inference
of
the
next
cycle.
For
example,
when
H10
solved
54 it.
Can
you
tell
me
more
about
what
you
were
thinking
problem
B-‐Q3
(how
to
determine
if
the
gas
in
a
cylinder
is
55 here?
oxygen),
this
student’s
first
cycle
of
inference
centered
on
56 R10:
You
know
oxygen
is
flammable,
so
you,
for
detecting
oxygen
by
a
change
of
color
(after
saying
that
most
57 instance,
if
I
was
to
light
a
match,
and
I
put
it
over
a
gases
don’t
have
color)
that
is
due
to
a
combination
occurring.
58 container
that
is
filled
with
oxygen
and
open
the
lid
of
the
The
evidence
for
this
was
having
seen
grayish-‐blackish
smoke
59 emerging
from
big
trucks
on
the
highway
which
results
from
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 13
14 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
22 sure
if
carbon
dioxide
had
a
smell
to
it.
So
I
was
wondering
F10’s,
but
the
arguments
employed
by
M11
are
associative.
23 if
I'm
not
sure,
how
can
I
know?
The
difference
in
smell
between
oxygen
and
carbon
dioxide
is
24 Interviewer:
Yeah,
ok.
So
that
would
make
it
difficult
associated
to
the
difference
in
smell
between
regular
air
and
25 without
a
smell.
Is
there
anything
else
that
you
think
you
gasoline,
and
the
next
difference
is
associated
to
doing
a
test
26 might
use
to
tell
the
difference?
from
afar.
Both
students
substantiated
claims
with
evidence,
27 M11:
Hmm…I'd
like
to
know
more
information
on
some
and
each
new
cycle
began
with
developing
an
inference
from
a
28 differences
between
carbon
dioxide
and
oxygen,
other
property
of
the
substances
that
arose
in
relation
to
a
question
29 than
what
I
already
know.
Something
I
could
tell
from
afar.
that
grew
out
of
the
just-‐completed
cycle.
30 Interviewer:
Ok,
why
from
afar?
31 M11:
Because
I'm
not
going
to
have
my
notes
with
me
The
Model-‐based
Reasoning
game.
In
the
Model-‐based
32 if
I
have
to
do
some
kind
of
test
where
I
have
to
tell
the
Reasoning
game
(Figure
6),
students
employed
models
to
33 difference.
explain
how
and/or
why
a
phenomenon
occurs,
or
to
34 Interviewer:
Yeah,
ok.
And
what
sort
of
test
might,
do
predict/hypothesize
a
result
that
could
occur.
How
students
35 you
think
might
be
able
to
do,
or
you
might
like
want
to
employ
modeling
has
been
studied
considerably
in
chemistry.
36 do?
Gilbert
(2004)
noted
that
models
used
by
students
in
37 M11:
I
don't
know
if
I
have
to
do
some
weird
science
chemistry
are
abstractions.
They
can
represent
systems
38 test
in
the
future,
where
I
have
to
tell
the
difference
and
I
(relationships
among
entities),
events
(behaviors),
or
39 can't
really
tell
the
difference.
processes
(changes).
They
can
be
produced,
tested,
and
40 M11
considered
that
there
must
be
a
difference
between
the
evaluated.
Models
are
presented
by
students
in
a
variety
of
41 gases
in
order
to
tell
them
apart,
which
is
a
sound
basis
for
modes,
sometimes
in
combination:
concrete,
verbal,
symbolic,
42 arguing
about
good
differentiating
characteristics
of
visual,
and
gestural
(Gilbert,
2004).
Students
can
preferentially
43 substances.
The
student
also
considered
gases
dangerous,
rely
on
the
concrete
mode
over
other
modes
(Harrison
&
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Figure
5.
Cycles
of
inference
in
M11’s
solution
of
problem
B-‐Q4.
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 15
5 about
here?
6 AP03:
Well
I
was
just
7 trying
to
see
if
it
was
silver,
16 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
5 made
of
metals
and
they
can
be
like
really
smooth,
and
the
6 top
of
the
rock
reminds
me
of
that.
7 Interviewer:
Ok,
anything
else
that
you
were
noticing
22 that
time.
23 As
M09
is
arguing
about
evidence
for
how
the
rock
is
24 composed,
the
view
of
substances
is
a
compositionism
view
25 due
to
considering
the
substances
as
mixtures
of
particles
26 that
bear
particular
properties.
The
student’s
approach
to
27 solving
this
problem
fits
the
Contrast
game
as
follows:
28 cueing
on
the
object
(entry
condition),
the
student
29 considers
the
object
to
be
a
rock,
which
triggers
using
the
30 classes
of
sedimentary
and
not-‐sedimentary
(cue
trigger
31 move).
The
student
then
composes
sets
of
properties
of
32 each
class
(recall
properties
move).
Sedimentary
rocks
are
33
not
smooth,
made
of
sand
and
stuff,
and
bumpy,
while
not-‐
34 Figure
7.
Schematic
diagram
of
the
structure
of
the
Contrast
game.
sedimentary
rocks
have
these
properties:
smooth,
35 examples
are
metal
or
granite,
and
one
can
make
The
Contrast
game.
The
Contrast
game
(Figure
7)
involves
countertops
from
it.
M09
next
assigns
the
object
to
not-‐
36
contrasting
classes
(students
usually
limited
this
to
two
sedimentary,
based
on
it
being
smooth
and
not
bumpy
(assign
37
classes)
in
order
to
decide
of
which
one
a
substance
is
a
substances
move).
Finally,
the
student
uses
the
idea
of
38
member.
Although
half
of
the
problems
(even-‐numbered
geologic
time
to
further
support
the
conclusion
that
it
is
39
problems)
were
differentiation
problems,
where
it
might
seem
sedimentary
rock
(optional
support
conclusion
move).
40
logical
to
draw
contrasts,
this
game
was
used
equally
in
41
identification
(odd-‐numbered
problems).
There
were
not
Ontologies
of
the
epistemic
games
42
differences
in
moves
of
the
game
between
the
doing
the
43
lesson
and
doing
science
frames.
Use
of
the
Contrast
game
in
a
In
answer
to
Research
Question
1b,
stable
ontologies
were
44
doing
science
frame
appeared
to
be
equally
accessible
to
students
observed
in
some
aspects
for
each
epistemic
game.
The
45
across
the
entire
educational
span.
For
example,
consider
M09’s
characteristic
knowledge
bases,
epistemic
forms,
and
46
doing
science
framed
solution
of
problem
C-‐Q3,
which
presented
a
epistemological
commitments
of
the
games
are
summarized
in
47
photo
of
an
irregular
gray
block
and
asked
how
to
determine
its
Table
4.
48 Students
who
relied
on
the
Compare
game
nearly
always
identity:
49 combined
an
epistemic
form
associated
with
a
chemistry
Interviewer:
You
said
this
object
is
probably
made
of
50 course
a nd
a
general
knowledge
base
associated
with
daily
life.
smooth
material
such
as
metal
or
granite,
I
think
this
is
51 Examples
of
epistemic
forms
included
representations
from
because
the
object
does
not
seem
to
be
from
sediments
52 science
courses,
such
as
biological
mechanism
process
due
to
its
smooth
look.
I
have
prior
knowledge
that
53 diagrams,
molecular
structures,
and
an
infrared
spectroscopy
materials
such
as
metal
can
be
formed
as
a
smooth
solid.
54 diagram
with
typical
ranges
of
particular
bond
types
labeled.
Can
you
tell
me
what
you
were
thinking
here?
55 Epistemic
forms
also
included
specific
memories
from
daily
M09:
So
it
looks
like
a
type
of
rock,
and
I
know
that
56 life,
such
as
holding
a
bottle
of
water
and
a
health
safety
sign
there
are
different
types
of
rocks,
and
one
type
are
57
sedimentary
rocks
which
are
made
of
sand
and
stuff.
And
on
the
wall,
or
memories
from
science
labs,
such
as
a
piece
of
58
those
are
usually
more
bumpy
and
usually
aren't
smooth
steel
wool
used
in
an
experiment
and
bubbles
fizzing
in
a
test
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 17
22 prevalent
science)
23
24 tube.
The
chemical
identity
knowledge
base
was
nearly
always
an
epistemological
commitment
that
empirical
results
are
25 objectivization
(27
of
31
instances).
For
example,
when
H08
trustworthy
(see
Appendix
for
an
example).
Students
who
26 solved
D-‐Q3
(transcript
above
in
Compare
game
description)
approached
problems
as
Prototype
Mapping
mainly
relied
on
27 s/he
relied
upon
objectivization,
although
appearing
to
know
a
an
objectivization
(38
of
50)
or
compositionism
(10
of
50)
view
28 fair
amount
of
chemistry.
H08
paid
attention
to
explicit
of
substances
as
they
identified
and
differentiated
substances.
29 features
(the
chemical
name
spelling,
faster
evaporation)
and
The
Inference
game
relied
on
an
epistemological
30 invoked
similar
aspects
of
the
epistemic
form
(odor,
sense
of
commitment
of
substantiating
claims
with
evidence.
An
31 coldness).
Similarly,
R05
(described
above
in
Compare
game
underlying
goal
of
reaching
irrefutability
seemed
to
drive
32 structure)
relied
on
an
objectivization
view
of
substances,
students
to
continue
substantiating
claims
with
evidence
as
33 focusing
on
shape
and
size
(square,
organization)
as
well
as
they
pursued
new
inference-‐evidence-‐questions
cycles
(see
34 functional
usage
(producing
energy).
Figures
4
and
5
for
examples).
Students
used
a
wide
variety
of
35 The
Compare
game
rests
upon
an
epistemological
view
knowledge
bases,
often
different
with
each
cycle
of
inference.
36 that
science
is
capable
of
explaining
the
real
world.
It
was
Likewise,
the
epistemic
forms
that
aided
students
are
not
37 typical
for
students
operating
in
a
doing
science
frame
to
easily
discerned.
For
example,
F10
(whose
logic
is
shown
in
38 seamlessly
blend
chemistry
language
with
daily
life
language,
Figure
4)
may
have
been
thinking
of
a
stimulant-‐effect
diagram
39 indicating
a
level
of
comfort
with
connecting
knowledge
from
learnt
in
biology
for
one
cycle,
and
M11
(whose
logic
is
shown
40 these
two
worlds.
For
example,
H08’s
epistemic
form
was
an
in
Figure
5)
may
have
been
imagining
being
the
actor
in
a
41 experience
in
chemistry
lab
with
rubbing
alcohol
on
the
skin
weird
science
show
for
one
cycle.
In
general,
the
epistemic
42 and
feeling
the
rapid
evaporation
(although
the
student
did
forms
of
students
who
employed
the
Inference
game
were
43 not
say
this,
we
know
that
this
specific
activity
is
in
the
difficult
to
discern.
This
may
be
because
the
path
depends
on
44 curriculum
used
in
this
school
district,
so
it
is
likely
the
student
whatever
is
in
the
evidence
brought
to
each
cycle’s
argument,
45 had
experienced
this),
but
the
student
also
connected
this
so
all
the
cycles
may
not
connect
to
a
single
epistemic
form.
46 science
experience
with
daily
life
(e.g.,
the
odor
of
nail
polish).
The
epistemological
commitment
common
to
instances
of
47 Students
in
a
doing
the
lesson
frame
also
put
together
the
Model-‐based
Reasoning
game
was
that
models
can
explain
48 knowledge
from
daily
life
and
science
to
explain
the
real
world.
and
predict
empirical
data.
In
our
data,
students
relied
on
all
49 For
example,
R05
drew
a
parallel
between
how
human
and
four
chemical
identity
knowledge
bases:
objectivization
(9
of
50 horse
cells
both
have
mitochondria,
thus
are
eukaryotes,
and
33),
principlism
(4
of
33),
compositionism
(13
of
33),
and
51 how
plants
have
square
shapes,
thus
they
are
plants.
The
interactionism
(7
of
33).
Models
exist
in
all
of
these
knowledge
52 student
applied
this
parallel
to
explain
how
chlorophylls
from
bases,
so
this
makes
some
sense.
The
models
themselves
53 different
sources
must
be
the
same.
served
as
the
epistemic
forms
that
aided
students’
problem
54 Common
to
all
of
the
observed
instances
of
the
Prototype
solving.
For
example,
AP03’s
epistemic
form
was
an
55 Mapping
game
was
students’
reliance
on
an
experience
as
the
electrochemical
cell
diagram
typically
used
in
teaching
this
56 epistemic
form.
Students
referred
to
experiences
in
their
jobs
topic,
with
two
half-‐cells
as
beakers
full
of
labeled
1.0
M
57 or
their
parents’
jobs,
such
as
working
at
a
car
dealership,
and
solutions,
a
labeled
metal
electrode
in
each
beaker
made
of
58 in
the
laboratory,
such
as
measuring
density
of
polystyrene
the
same
metal
whose
metal
ion
is
in
the
solution,
a
salt
59 spheres
in
the
general
chemistry
lab.
There
was
consistency
in
bridge,
and
electrodes
connected
by
a
wire
with
a
voltmeter.
60
18 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
22 other
students’
epistemic
forms
were
based
on
structure.
For
chemical
identity,
and
was
aided
by
an
epistemic
form
of
23 example,
R08’s
problem
solving
appeared
to
be
supported
by
energy
states
of
different
particles
(“nature
tends
toward
24 an
epistemic
form
something
like
the
model
shown
in
Figure
8.
lower
energy
states”
so
“this
particle
would
rather
be
carbon
25 In
problem
C-‐Q2,
this
student
said
that
the
two
caffeines
(in
dioxide”).
As
another
example,
AP08
relied
on
a
26 plant
seedlings
and
energy
drinks)
would
be
the
same
because
compositionism
view
of
chemical
identity
in
reasoning
about
27 “the
physical
characteristics
that
make
caffeine
a
stimulant
why
caramelized
sucrose
is
the
same
substance
as
crystals
of
28 also
make
it
a
deterrent
for
insects”.
The
interviewer
asked
the
sucrose:
“it's
still
the
same
substance,
it's
just
that
for
example
29 student
to
tell
her
more
about
this,
to
which
the
student
like
an
H2O
molecule
would
break
from
an
H2O
molecule.
I
30 answered:
“Yeah,
I
started
to
think
about
it
on
a
molecular
think
when
I
was
thinking
of
this
question
I
was
thinking
the
Hs
31 scale.
And
I
know
that
the
shapes
of
molecules
really
affect
would
separate
from
the
Os,
like
as
an
example,
but
it's
still
the
32 their
function
and
their
purpose.
So,
when
I
think
about
same
substance”.
M09
(whose
interview
is
given
in
the
33 caffeine
and
its
effects
on
a
person
as
a
stimulant,
or
just
as
a
Contrast
game
structure
above)
also
had
an
epistemic
form
34 stimulant,
I
assumed
it
had
something
to
do
with
the
shape.
that
was
a
visualization
of
different
types
and
arrangements
of
35 And
for
the
same
reasons
that
it’s
a
deterrent,
I
assumed
that
“particles”
in
sedimentary
and
metamorphic
rock.
36 it
had
something
to
do
with
the
shape.
And
now
the
more
that
Considerable
evidence
in
the
literature
suggests
that
many
37 I
think
it
through,
maybe
it’s
different
qualities
of
that
shape
or
students
at
this
age
consider
particles
to
be
granular
(c.f.
38 structure
that
give
it
those
two
different
functions,
but
that’s
Talanquer,
2009).
39 where
my
mind
was
at.”
Students
also
solved
problems
with
reference
to
unique
40 All
four
chemical
identity
knowledge
bases
were
used
in
properties
of
members
of
classes
being
contrasted.
Some
41 the
Model-‐based
Reasoning
game,
which
may
stand
to
reason
epistemic
forms
took
shape
as
logic
flowcharts.
For
example,
42 as
different
models
can
be
tied
to
different
assumptions
about
as
P07
solved
problem
D-‐Q1
(how
to
tell
if
some
white
crystals
43 substances.
For
example,
R08,
in
the
problem
described
just
are
sucrose),
this
student
also
used
the
word
“definitive”
and
44 above,
relied
on
compositionism
in
relating
how
different
proposed
a
series
of
tests
to
narrow
toward
a
more
definitive
45 components
of
the
molecule
would
render
different
functions.
conclusion
about
the
identity,
recognizing
that
“it
couldn’t
be
46 Another
student,
R09,
when
solving
the
same
problem
relied
definitive
but
it
could
be
very
very
probable”.
The
tests
47 on
interactionism
to
reason
about
protein
binding:
“I
was
described
by
the
student
seemed
to
be
envisioned
as
a
48 thinking
because
it
is
a
neurological
agent,
it
has
to
bind
to
flowchart
(Figure
9),
with
classes
as
sucrose
and
not-‐sucrose,
49 some
sort
of
protein
usually,
and
by
the
nature
of
proteins
they
which
were
increasingly
specified
by
more
additions
to
the
50 require
extremely
specific
functions
in
order
for
them
to
work
sets
of
properties
that
these
tests
would
reveal.
51 otherwise
the
substrate
just
won’t
fit
or
it
just
will
fit
differently
52 and
then
it
doesn’t
work…
a
bond
line
representation
of
it
Patterns
in
epistemic
games
observed
53 would
be
useful
since
it
would
allow
the
identification
of
any
Table
5
presents
a
summary
of
which
games
were
observed
at
54 chiral
centers
thereby
illustrating
any
possible
alternate
different
educational
levels.
As
noted
earlier,
13
of
the
207
55 structures.
Optical
data
from
caffeine
extracted
from
both
episodes
did
not
fall
within
the
5
games
reported.
To
provide
56 natural
and
synthetic
sources
would
also
aid
in
pointing
out
further
detail,
for
the
games
that
occurred
in
both
the
doing
57 any
structural
differences.
It’s
about
the
specificity.”
the
lesson
and
doing
science
general
framings,
Table
6
breaks
58 these
out
by
educational
level
for
which
frame
was
assumed.
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 19
22 students
at
every
educational
level.
Across
all
the
data,
51%
of
The
Contrast
game
is
a
basic
approach
to
solving
problems
23 students
had
an
overall
epistemology
of
doing
the
lesson,
that
is
taught
from
very
early
years
of
education,
and
it
is
24 while
49%
were
doing
science,
and
as
can
be
seen
in
Table
6,
surprising
to
see
it
diminish
in
prevalence.
It
appeared
that
a
25 this
split
was
present
in
all
games
at
all
educational
levels.
On
more
sophisticated
approach
to
using
the
Contrast
game,
as
26 average,
participants
relied
on
a
mean
of
2.83
(SD
0.68)
games
sets
of
properties
connected
to
tests
as
in
a
flowchart
(see
27 across
4
problems.
Two
participants
used
only
one
game,
11
Figure
9
for
an
example
of
P07’s
epistemic
form
in
solving
D-‐
28 used
two
games,
33
used
three
games,
and
6
used
four
games.
Q1)
emerges
only
later
as
a
variation
on
the
Contrast
game.
In
29 Beyond
descriptive
statistics,
the
numbers
of
participants
and
our
data,
we
only
saw
the
flowchart
as
an
epistemic
form
in
30 conditions
are
too
small
to
support
further
statistical
analyses.
the
Contrast
game
at
the
highest
educational
levels,
when
31 When
examining
the
reliance
on
different
games
across
students
composed
classes
as
sets
of
properties
connected
to
32 educational
levels,
some
trends
appear.
A
clear
trend
is
that
various
tests
that
could
be
performed.
At
lower
educational
33 the
Model-‐based
Reasoning
game
grows
in
across
educational
levels,
the
properties
of
classes
in
the
Contrast
game
tended
to
34 levels.
Students
are
introduced
to
more
models
as
their
include
extensive
or
functional
properties.
For
example,
M11
35 training
in
science
progresses,
and
if
students
have
access
to
relied
on
an
objectivization
view
of
chemical
identity
to
solve
36 more
models
on
which
to
rely,
they
may
find
more
relevance
problem
B-‐Q1
(determining
whether
the
liquid
in
a
glass
is
37 for
models
in
solving
problems.
The
Inference
game
water)
by
creating
two
classes,
water
and
not-‐water,
and
38 meanwhile
remains
mostly
steady
across
all
educational
levels,
relying
on
explicit
properties:
“water
doesn't
really
smell,
it
39
40 Table
5.
Epistemic
games
observed
in
the
problem-‐solving
episodes
of
52
students,
organized
by
educational
level,
and
shown
as
heat
map
by
column
(red
=
least
prevalent
at
that
educational
level,
green
=
most
prevalent
at
that
educational
level).
Instances
are
out
of
41
the
complete
set
of
207
interviews.
42
Epistemic
game
M
H
AP
F
R
P
Sum
43
Compare
6
4
3
3
8
7
31
44 Prototype
mapping
7
5
6
17
12
8
55
45 Inference
6
8
6
10
4
8
42
46 Model-‐based
reasoning
1
5
5
8
9
5
33
47 Contrast
6
9
6
4
5
3
33
48 Total
26
31
26
42
38
31
194
49
50 Table
6.
Percentages,
by
educational
level,
of
doing
the
lesson
(Lsn)
and
doing
science
(Sci)
framing
within
each
of
the
epistemic
games
51 that
occurred
in
both
ways
of
framing.
52 M
H
AP
F
R
P
53 Epistemic
game
Lsn
Sci
Lsn
Sci
Lsn
Sci
Lsn
Sci
Lsn
Sci
Lsn
Sci
54 Compare
2
4
2
2
1
2
2
1
4
4
3
4
55 Prototype
Mapping
4
3
5
0
4
2
12
5
8
4
4
4
56 Inference
2
4
1
7
4
2
7
3
1
3
2
6
57 Model-‐based
Reasoning
0
1
2
3
3
2
2
6
2
7
3
2
58 Contrast
2
4
4
5
2
4
1
3
1
4
2
1
59 Total
10
16
14
17
14
12
24
18
16
22
14
17
60
20 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
4 A-‐ A-‐ A-‐ A-‐ B-‐ B-‐ B-‐ B-‐ C-‐ C-‐ C-‐ C-‐ D-‐ DOI:D-‐10.1039/C8RP00047F
D-‐ D-‐
Epistemic
game
5 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
6 Compare
0
0
1
4
3
0
1
0
5
2
6
3
2
0
2
2
7 Prototype
Mapping
11
3
2
1
6
1
4
4
3
0
3
1
4
5
4
3
22
students
were
enrolled.
In
particular,
this
was
the
game
most
abstract
representations
(biological
mechanism
diagrams,
23
relied
upon
by
far
of
students
taking
organic
chemistry,
which
molecular
structures,
a
generic
IR
spectrum
showing
24
could
be
due
to
substance
characterization
being
a
consistent
wavenumber
regions
of
particular
functional
groups).
25
activity
in
many
of
the
laboratory
experiments
typically
26
conducted
in
organic
chemistry,
and
students
likely
can
recall
27 Discussion
easily
their
recent
experiences.
28
Table
7
shows
the
epistemic
games
organized
by
problem,
In
this
study,
students
at
six
educational
levels
spanning
from
29
as
a
heat
map
to
assist
interpretation.
In
relation
to
Research
grade
8
(age
13)
to
upper-‐level
university
(physical
chemistry
30
Question
2b,
different
material
contexts
appeared
to
evoke
course)
were
asked
to
solve
problems
of
substance
31
different
games.
This
can
support
implications
for
which
characterization.
Each
student
solved
four
problems.
We
32
contexts
may
be
most
useful
for
teachers
to
use
when
trying
observed
5
epistemic
games
that
were
distinct
in
their
33
to
guide
students
to
develop
versatility
in
the
epistemic
games
structural
and
ontological
stability.
Some
common
approaches
34
on
which
they
rely.
For
example,
Model-‐based
Reasoning
was
to
teaching
students
how
to
solve
problems
were
reflected
in
35
the
most
popular
game
for
problem
B-‐Q2,
which
asked
what
is
the
games.
The
construction
of
scientific
arguments
emerged
36
in
the
bubbles
when
water
boils.
This
probably
reflects
that
in
the
Inference
game,
and
modeling
appeared
in
Model-‐based
37
the
boiling
of
water
is
the
example
most
often
used
when
Reasoning.
The
Contrast
game
follows
a
pattern
used
38
learning
about
how
the
kinetic
molecular
theory
and
throughout
many
subjects
in
school.
Prototype
Mapping
39
intermolecular
forces
are
relevant
in
phase
changes.
Problem
relates
new
information
to
remembered
examples,
as
40
D-‐Q4,
which
asked
the
same
question
about
ethanol
boiling,
analogical
reasoning
does.
Although
we
could
focus
the
41
saw
more
reliance
on
Prototype
Mapping,
Inference,
and
Discussion
on
the
ways
in
which
the
epistemic
games
we
42
Model-‐based
Reasoning.
Problem
A-‐Q1,
which
asked
how
to
observed
relate
to
a
wide
variety
of
studies
in
cognition
43
determine
if
a
gray
metal
earring
is
silver,
almost
exclusively
research,
we
are
instead
interested
in
illuminating
the
value
of
44
evoked
Prototype
Mapping.
Nearly
all
of
the
epistemic
games
this
study
for
teaching
and
learning
chemistry
through
the
45
that
aided
students’
solutions
of
A-‐Q1
were
chemistry
labs
frame
of
learning
progressions
research.
Thus,
we
limit
the
46
they
had
experienced,
e.g.,
electrochemical
cells,
density
scope
of
the
discussion.
47
experiments,
flame
tests,
electroplating
a
penny,
precipitation
The
epistemic
games
we
observed
were
present
at
all
48
reactions,
melting
point
procedures,
etc.
educational
levels,
however
not
equally.
In
this
sense,
there
49
Of
all
the
epistemic
games,
the
Compare
game
is
likely
the
appears
to
be
some
validity
to
our
hypothesis
that
some
50
one
that
is
least
taught
explicitly
in
school
(Ngai
&
Sevian,
epistemic
games
are
conserved
across
all
educational
levels
51
2017).
Students
may
figure
out
from
repeated
practice
that
due
to
their
considered
productivity,
while
others
emerge
only
52
chemists
tend
to
form
classes
that
can
support
some
at
later
educational
levels.
The
Model-‐based
Reasoning
game
53
generalizations,
e.g.,
molecular
vs.
ionic,
oxidizing
agent
vs.
grew
in,
the
Inference
game
remained
steady,
and
the
54
reducing
agent,
weak
and
strong
acids
and
bases.
These
are
Contrast
game
receded.
Prototype
Mapping
may
depend
on
55
nearly
always
loose
categories
with
large
gray
areas
of
overlap,
the
course
in
which
students
were
enrolled.
The
Compare
56
and
it
is
difficult
to
learn
the
boundaries.
It
may
be
useful
to
game
exhibits
some
unique
characteristics.
These
findings
57
know
that
the
Compare
game
is
evoked
in
the
contexts
of
about
students’
ideas
and
the
contexts
in
which
different
ideas
58
problems
A-‐Q4
(are
the
chlorophylls
from
algae
vs.
trees
the
had
greater
and
lesser
prevalence
have
implications
for
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 21
4 epistemic
games,
as
well
as
ways
to
discern
when
particular
comprise
hypotheses
to
test
in
a
next
DOI: cycle
of
learning
10.1039/C8RP00047F
5 approaches
to
problem
solving
are
likely
to
be
more
progression
validation,
which
would
pay
attention
to
how
6 productive.
students
solve
problems
involving
substance
characterization
7 We
framed
this
study
using
the
approach
of
Acher
and
in
classrooms
in
which
teachers
try
these
teaching
acts.
22 epistemology
perceived
to
be
correct,
using
point
out
its
usefulness,
and
clarify
knowledge,
juxtaposing
possible
23 scientific
vocabulary
where
possible/alternative
solutions
solutions
and
making
sense
of
their
24 possible
appropriateness
25 Compare
Identify
object-‐relevant
• Sort
substances
from
daily
life
into
Identify
implicit
features
of
26 properties
(surface
similarity,
classes
that
can
support
predictions,
substances
(e.g.,
structural
functional
usage,
history)
that
then
develop
more
abstract
components,
reactive
capacities)
27
are
similar
in
objects
that
are
generalizations
of
the
classes
that
enable
identifying
them
as
28
considered
familiar
examples
• Identify
and
differentiate
unfamiliar
members
of
classes
that
share
29 of
substances
substances
characteristic
sets
of
properties
30 • Useful
contexts:
differentiation
of
large
(e.g.,
low
boiling
points,
31 molecules
such
as
chlorophyll
and
characteristic
odor)
32 caffeine,
differentiation
of
metals
33 Prototype
Choose
prototype
of
a
• Organize
purposes
for
measuring
Observe
multiple
characteristics
of
34 Mapping
substance
or
experience
by
different
properties
used
to
characterize
substances
and
choose
prototype
35 most
immediate
association
substances
substance
or
laboratory
test
based
36 to
obvious
explicit
• Recognize
types
of
substances
the
on
similarity
to
several
37 characteristics
of
a
substance
procedures
are
typically
used
to
identify
differentiating
characteristics
38 • Useful
contexts:
identification
of
metals,
39 identification
and
differentiation
of
40 alcohols,
differentiating
reactants
and
41 products
in
dissociation
reactions
42 Inference
Use
associations
based
on
• Notice
relationships
between
explicit
Recognize
causal
links
between
43 object-‐relevant
properties
(e.g.,
which
elements)
and
implicit
(e.g.,
claims
and
evidence
based
on
44 (surface
similarity,
functional
acidic
or
basic
character)
features
of
compositional
and
structural
usage,
history)
to
connect
molecules
differences
between
substances
45
claims
to
evidence
• Useful
contexts:
Changes
in
which
only
46
part
of
the
sample
changes
(e.g.,
boiling
47 of
ethanol,
metal
earring
changing
color)
48
Model-‐based
Apply
models
as
rules
(if
• Draw
representations
of
models
and
Use
information
from
the
problem
49 Reasoning
antecedent
then
consequent)
as
parameters
or
conditions
that
explain
causal
links
between
aspects
of
50 the
model
and
properties
of
specific
constrain
the
applicability
of
a
51 substances
model
52 • Useful
contexts:
Differentiation
of
liquids
53 that
look
like
water
54 Contrast
Recognize
surface
features
of
• Express
procedures
for
identifying
and
Perform/propose
tests
based
on
55 substances
(color,
differentiating
substances
as
flowcharts
characteristic
properties
to
effect
a
56 organoleptic
properties,
• Useful
contexts:
Identification
and
sequential
narrowing
toward
a
57 which
elements
are
in
it)
that
differentiation
of
white
crystals,
more
definitive
identification
or
58 form
the
basis
for
contrasts
identification
of
liquids
that
look
like
differentiation
59 water
60
22 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
5 learning
progression
(Banks
et
al.,
2015;
Cullipher
et
al.,
2015),
Identification
by
comparison
to
a
class,
however,
is
a
6 we
called
these
‘stepping
stones’,
to
invoke
an
image
of
powerful
but
often
neglected
approach
to
identifying
7 possible
pathways
in
the
progress
of
learning.
Armed
now
with
substances.
Students
of
chemistry
have
considerable
difficulty
22 Some
students
in
the
study
of
Watkins
and
coauthors
took
an
The
fact
that
the
Compare
game
was
used
productively
23 impersonal
stance
with
respect
to
what
they
said,
for
example
mainly
by
students
at
the
highest
educational
levels
in
this
24 marked
by
a
flat
tone
and
not
displaying
any
uncertainty.
study
supports
our
interpretation.
The
question
is
how
to
25 Other
students
took
a
more
personal
stance
toward
what
they
facilitate
students
to
develop
the
capacity
to
use
the
Compare
26 communicated,
for
example
telling
a
first-‐person
story
and
game.
An
answer
may
rest
in
using
specific
material
contexts
27 announcing
ongoing
uncertainty.
We
also
observed
these
to
help
students
gain
practice
with
this
epistemic
game.
Based
28 positionings
in
our
data,
and
relied
upon
them
to
help
on
the
findings
of
this
study,
differentiation
of
large
molecules,
29 determine
whether
the
student
was
doing
the
lesson
vs.
doing
such
as
chlorophyll
and
caffeine,
and
differentiation
of
metals,
30 science,
but
these
signals
were
not
always
consistent
with
how
which
look
similar
and
are
often
unfamiliar,
appear
to
be
31 we
coded
students’
overall
epistemology
as
other
signs
also
useful
material
contexts
that
could
promote
students’
32 contributed.
However,
we
conjecture
that
if
a
student
is
clearly
development
of
more
abstract
generalizations
that
can
33 in
a
doing
the
lesson
frame,
but
there
are
signs
of
a
personal
support
defining
classes
of
substances.
34 positioning,
it
could
signal
a
student
being
poised
to
move
35 from
doing
the
lesson
to
doing
science.
Thus,
these
may
be
Explicit
vs.
implicit
features
36 signs
that
a
teacher
could
watch
for
in
a
classroom
to
gauge
The
objectivization
view
of
substances
generally
focuses
on
37 which
students
may
be
ready
to
be
challenged.
explicit
features
of
substances
(surface
similarity,
functional
38
usage,
and
history)
in
order
to
make
determinations
of
39 Comparing
vs.
contrasting
chemical
identity
(Ngai,
Sevian
&
Talanquer,
2014).
Paying
40 attention
to
explicit
features
is
useful
and
quite
common
in
Students
articulated
chemistry
problem
solving
in
the
form
of
41 daily
life,
so
it
may
be
the
case
that
promoting
students’
five
epistemic
games.
Two
of
these
–
the
Compare
and
42 reliance
on
more
sophisticated
ways
of
using
the
Compare
Contrast
games
–
had
very
different
expressions
in
the
data.
43 game,
which
blends
objectivization
(chemical
identity
Comparing
focuses
on
commonalities
while
contrasting
44 knowledge
base),
daily
life
(as
general
knowledge),
and
focuses
on
differences.
From
very
early
in
education,
students
45 epistemic
forms
based
on
chemistry
learning,
is
an
approach
are
taught
to
contrast.
Examples
of
contrasting
are
ubiquitous.
46 that
could
be
leveraged
to
help
students
connect
their
Contrasting
is
used
in
language
arts
to
analyze
differences
47 knowledge
inside
and
outside
of
chemistry
learning
as
they
between
stories,
and
in
teaching
languages
to
specify
verb
48 make
sense
of
phenomena.
This
might
be
facilitated
by
asking
conjugations.
It
is
used
in
mathematics
when
making
“T-‐
49 students
to
speculate
on
ways
of
grouping
different
charts”
that
list
x
and
y
values
for
making
a
graph
of
how
y
50 substances
from
their
daily
lives,
in
order
to
derive
classes
of
varies
with
x.
It
is
used
in
life
sciences
to
tell
apart
similar
51 substances
that
can
support
predictions.
organisms,
such
as
alligators
and
crocodiles,
and
contrasting
52 The
major
difference
between
students
who
used
also
provides
an
explanation
for
how
molecular
recognition
53 Prototype
Mapping,
Inference,
and
Contrast
games
in
a
doing
works
in
cellular
processes.
When
two
objects
are
placed
side
54 the
lesson
vs.
doing
science
frame
was
also
based
on
focusing
by
side,
the
similarities
fall
away
and
the
differences
stand
out
55 on
explicit
vs.
implicit
features
of
substances.
Each
of
these
(Apthorp,
Igel,
&
Dean,
2012).
By
the
time
students
reach
the
56 games,
however,
has
telltale
features
that
teachers
can
middle
grades,
they
have
had
an
enormous
amount
of
practice
57 recognize.
Prototype
Mapping
refers
to
a
specific
example
or
with
contrasting.
It
is
not
surprising,
then,
that
the
Contrast
58 experience.
The
Inference
game
tends
to
occur
in
cycles
of
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 23
4 groupings
that
function
as
either/or
bins,
and
often
coincides
DOI: 10.1039/C8RP00047F
Substance
characterization
is
fundamental
to
chemistry.
When
5 with
epistemic
games
that
are
lists
of
properties.
Different
students
solve
problems
in
chemistry,
they
may
be
expected
to
6 material
contexts
seemed
to
evoke
doing
science
bring
epistemological
resources
to
their
work
in
solving
these
7 manifestations
of
these
games,
and
these
are
suggested
in
24 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
4 were
to,
I
used
to
work
in
a
car
dealership
and
um,
anytime
carbon
dioxide,
it
is
also
different
from
DOI: oxygen
by
having
10.1039/C8RP00047F
5 when
someone
would
turn
on
the
car
engine
inside
the
carbon
and
two
oxygens
which
makes
it
heavier
than
only
6 showroom.
You
can
smell,
it’s
probably
gasoline
that
I’m
having
oxygens.
7 thinking
of
but
it
could
definitely
make
you
sick.
Justification/ruling
out
other
games:
The
only
other
game
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 25
22 Dalgety,
J.,
Coll,
R.
K.,
&
Jones,
A.
(2003).
Development
of
chemistry
students.
Journal
of
Chemical
Education,
90(8),
23 chemistry
attitudes
and
experiences
questionnaire
968-‐975.
(CAEQ).
Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching,
40(7),
649-‐ Mohan,
L.,
Chen,
J.,
&
Anderson,
C.
W.
(2009).
Developing
a
24 668.
multi-‐year
learning
progression
for
carbon
cycling
in
socio-‐
25 Elby,
A.,
Frederiksen,
J.,
Schwarz,
C.,
&
White,
B.
(2001).
ecological
systems.
Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching,
26 Epistemological
Beliefs
Assessment
for
Physical
Science
46(6),
675-‐698.
27 (EBAPS).
Retrieved
December
30,
2017
from
<
Ngai,
C.,
&
Sevian,
H.
(2017).
Capturing
chemical
identity
28 http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/EBAPS/home.htm>
thinking.
Journal
of
Chemical
Education,
94(2),
137-‐148.
Elby,
A.,
&
Hammer,
D.
(2001).
On
the
substance
of
a
Ngai,
C.,
Sevian,
H.,
&
Talanquer,
V.
(2014).
What
is
this
29 sophisticated
epistemology.
Science
Education,
85(5),
554-‐ substance?
What
makes
it
different?
Mapping
progression
in
30 567.
students’
assumptions
about
chemical
identity.
International
31 Elby,
A.,
&
Hammer,
D.
(2010).
Epistemological
resources
and
Journal
of
Science
Education,
36(14),
2438-‐2461.
32 framing:
A
cognitive
framework
for
helping
teachers
Podschuweit,
S.
&
Bernholt,
S.
(2017).
Composition-‐effects
of
33 interpret
and
respond
to
their
students’
epistemologies.
In
L.
context-‐based
learning
opportunities
on
students’
D.
Bendixen
&
F.
C.
Feucht
(Eds.),
Personal
epistemology
in
understanding
of
energy.
Research
in
Science
Education.
34 the
classroom:
Theory,
research,
and
implications
for
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-‐016-‐9585-‐z
35 practice,
pp.
409-‐434.
Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Potter,
W.
J.,
&
Levine-‐Donnerstein,
D.
(1999).
Rethinking
36 Press.
validity
and
reliability
in
content
analysis.
Journal
of
Applied
37 Enke,
C.
(2001).
The
art
and
science
of
chemical
analysis.
New
Communication
Research,
27,
258-‐284.
38 York:
Wiley.
Prince,
M.
(2004).
Does
active
learning
work?
A
review
of
the
Gilbert,
J.
K.
(2004).
Models
and
modelling:
Routes
to
more
research.
Journal
of
Engineering
Education,
93(3),
223-‐231.
39 authentic
science
education.
International
Journal
of
Science
Pulmones,
R.
(2010).
Linking
students’
epistemological
beliefs
40 and
Mathematics
Education,
2(2),
115-‐130.
with
their
metacognition
in
a
chemistry
classroom.
The
Asia-‐
41 Grove,
N.,
&
Bretz,
S.
L.
(2007).
CHEMX:
An
instrument
to
assess
Pacific
Education
Researcher,
19(1),
143-‐159.
42 students'
cognitive
expectations
for
learning
chemistry.
J.
Redish,
E.
F.
(2004).
A
theoretical
framework
for
physics
43 Chem.
Educ,
84(9),
1524-‐1529.
education
research:
Modeling
student
thinking.
arXiv
Hammer,
D.
M.,
Elby,
A.,
Scherr,
R.
E.,
&
Redish,
E.
F.
(2005).
preprint
physics/0411149.
44 Resources,
framing,
and
transfer.
In
J.
Mestre
(Ed.),
Transfer
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411149.pdf
45 of
learning
from
a
modern
multidisciplinary
perspective
(pp.
Robertson,
A.
D.,
Scherr,
R.,
&
Hammer,
D.
(Eds.).
(2016).
46 89-‐120).
Greenwich,
CT:
Information
Age
Publishing.
Responsive
teaching
in
science
and
mathematics.
Abingdon,
47 Harrison,
A.G.
&
Treagust,
D.F.
(1996).
Secondary
students’
UK:
Routledge.
48 mental
models
of
atoms
and
molecules:
Implications
for
Russ,
R.
S.,
Lee,
V.
R.,
&
Sherin,
B.
L.
(2012).
Framing
in
cognitive
learning
chemistry.
Science
Education,
80(5),
509–534.
clinical
interviews
about
intuitive
science
knowledge:
49 Heaton,
J.
(2008).
Secondary
analysis
of
qualitative
data:
an
Dynamic
student
understandings
of
the
discourse
50 overview.
Historical
Social
Research,
33(3),
33-‐45.
interaction.
Science
Education,
96(4),
573-‐599.
51 Hershkowitz,
R.,
Hadas,
N.,
Dreyfus,
T.,
&
Schwarz,
B.
(2007).
Sampson,
V.,
&
Clark,
D.
(2009).
The
impact
of
collaboration
on
52 Abstracting
processes,
from
individuals’
constructing
of
the
outcomes
of
scientific
argumentation.
Science
Education,
53 knowledge
to
a
group’s
“shared
knowledge”.
Mathematics
93(3),
448-‐484.
Education
Research
Journal,
19(2),
41-‐68.
Scherr,
R.
E.,
&
Hammer,
D.
(2009).
Student
behavior
and
54 Hershkowitz,
R.,
Schwarz,
B.
B.,
&
Dreyfus,
T.
(2001).
Abstraction
epistemological
framing:
Examples
from
collaborative
active-‐
55 in
context:
Epistemic
actions.
Journal
for
Research
in
learning
activities
in
physics.
Cognition
and
Instruction,
27(2),
56 Mathematics
Education,
195-‐222.
147-‐174.
57 Hmelo-‐Silver,
C.
E.
(2004).
Problem-‐based
learning:
What
and
Schmidt,
H.
G.,
Rotgans,
J.
I.,
&
Yew,
E.
H.
(2011).
The
process
of
58 how
do
students
learn?
Educational
Psychology
Review,
problem-‐based
learning:
what
works
and
why.
Medical
16(3),
235-‐266.
Education,
45(8),
792-‐806.
59
60
26 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
22 Szteinberg,
G.,
Balicki,
S.,
Banks,
G.,
Clinchot,
M.,
Cullipher,
S.,
23 Huie,
R.,
Lambertz,
J.,
Lewis,
R.,
Ngai,
C.,
Weinrich,
M.,
Talanquer,
V.,
&
Sevian,
H.
(2014).
Collaborative
professional
24 development
in
chemistry
education
research:
bridging
the
25 gap
between
research
and
practice.
Journal
of
Chemical
26 Education,
91(9),
1401-‐1408.
27 Taber,
K.
S.
(2003).
Mediating
mental
models
of
metals:
28 Acknowledging
the
priority
of
the
learner's
prior
learning.
Science
Education,
87(5),
732-‐758.
29 Talanquer,
V.
(2009).
On
cognitive
constraints
and
learning
30 progressions:
The
case
of
structure
of
matter.
International
31 Journal
of
Science
Education,
31(15),
2123-‐2136
32 Talanquer,
V.
(2014).
Chemistry
education:
Ten
heuristics
to
33 tame.
Journal
of
Chemical
Education,
91(8),
1091-‐1097.
Thompson,
J.,
Windschitl,
M.,
&
Braaten,
M.
(2013).
Developing
34 a
theory
of
ambitious
early-‐career
teacher
practice.
35 American
Educational
Research
Journal,
50(3),
574-‐615.
36 Tsai,
C.
C.
(2001).
A
review
and
discussion
of
epistemological
37 commitments,
metacognition,
and
critical
thinking
with
38 suggestions
on
their
enhancement
in
Internet-‐assisted
chemistry
classrooms.
Journal
of
Chemical
Education,
78(7),
39 970.
40 Tuminaro,
J.,
&
Redish,
E.
F.
(2007).
Elements
of
a
cognitive
41 model
of
physics
problem
solving:
Epistemic
games.
Physical
42 Review
Special
Topics-‐Physics
Education
Research,
3(2),
43 020101.
Veenman,
M.
V.
(2012).
Metacognition
in
science
education:
44 Definitions,
constituents,
and
their
intricate
relation
with
45 cognition.
In
A.
Zohar
&
Y.
J.
Dori
(Eds.),
Metacognition
in
46 science
education
(pp.
21-‐36).
Dordrecht:
Springer.
47 Vosniadou,
S.,
&
Ortony,
A.
(Eds.).
(1989).
Similarity
and
48 analogical
reasoning.
Cambridge
University
Press.
Watkins,
J.,
Hammer,
D.,
Radoff,
J.,
Jaber,
L.
Z.,
&
Phillips,
A.
M.
49 (2017).
Positioning
as
not-‐understanding:
The
value
of
50 showing
uncertainty
for
engaging
in
science.
Journal
of
51 Research
in
Science
Teaching.
DOI:
10.1002/tea.21431
52 Wittgenstein,
L.
(1958).
Philosophical
investigations
(G.
E.
M.
53 Anscombe,
Trans.
2nd.
edn.).
Oxford,
England:
Basil
Blackwell.
(Original
work
published
1953)
54 Zeineddin,
A.,
&
Abd-‐El-‐Khalick,
F.
(2010).
Scientific
reasoning
55 and
epistemological
commitments:
Coordination
of
theory
56 and
evidence
among
college
science
students.
Journal
of
57 Research
in
Science
Teaching,
47(9),
1064-‐1093.
58
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 00, 1-‐3 | 27