Grade 3 and 6 Science Teachers' Knowledge and Scientific Understanding of the Particulate Nature of Matter
Abstract
This study investigated grade 3 and grade 6 science teachers’ knowledge and scientific understanding of the particulate matter of public elementary schools in the City Division of Catbalogan, Samar. In this regard, the study employed descriptive research design which involved 36 grade 3 and 36 grade 6 teachers. Data were collected using a two-tier diagnostic test. For the findings, the result of t-test for independent samples revealed a computed t-value of 0.999 with a p-value of 0.320. It was very clear that the p-value was greater than the 0.05 significance level indicating no significant difference in level of knowledge of the particulate nature of matter between grade 3 and grade 6 teacher-respondents. The hypothesis “there is no significant difference in level of knowledge of the particulate nature of matter between grade 3 and grade 6 teacher-respondents” was accepted. For the conclusion, the majority of the teacher-respondents had below average knowledge of the particulate nature of matter. Age and knowledge of the particulate nature of matter were not significantly related. The level of knowledge was not significantly related to sex; grade level taught; years of teaching; educational background; and number of trainigs attended. There was no significant difference in level of knowledge of the particulate nature of matter between grade 3 and grade 6 teacher-respondents. All teacher-respondents had unscientific understanding of the particulate nature of matter. Results showed that teachers have below average knowledge and exhibited no scientific understanding of the particulate nature of matter and possess several unscientific understanding.
References
Adadan, E. (2017). Exploring Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Explanations About Dissolving
in the Context of Multi-Representational Instruction. ESERA 2017 Conference.
Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Adbo, K. and Taber, K. (2009). Learners’ Mental Models of the Particle nature of Matter:
A study of 16-year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science
Education. 31:6, 757-786, DOI: 10.1080/09500690701799383
Albert, J. (2012). Using Student-Generated Animations about Water Boiling to Impact
Student Understanding of the Particulate Nature of Matter. International Journal of
Science Education, 20(3), 308-316.
Ayas, A. Ozmen, H., and Calik, M. (2010). Students’ Conceptions of the Particulate
Nature of Matter at Secondary and Tertiary Level. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education. 8, pp 165-184
Aydeniz, M., Bilican, K. & Kirbulut, Z.D. (2017). Exploring pre-service elementary
science teachers’ conceptual understanding of particulate nature of matter
through three-tier diagnostic test. International Journal of Education in Mathematics,
Science and Technology (IJEMST), 5(3), 221-234.
Ayvazo, S. (2007). Exploring the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Effective Teachers
in Physical Education. International Journal of Science Education, 29(13), 1679-1685.
Baluyot, J. (2015). Unpacking Students’ Atomistic Understanding of Stoichiometry.
Chemical Education International, 6(1), 10-16.
Banda, A., Mumba, F., Chabalengula, V, and Mbewe, S. (2011). Teachers’ understanding
of the particulate nature of matter: The case of Zambian pre-service science
teachers. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 12, Issue 2,
Article 4, p. 1
Beerenwinkel, A., Parchmann, I., and Grasel, C. (2011). Conceptual Change Texts in
Chemistry Teaching: A study on the Particulate Model of Matter. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 9, 1235-1259.
Bektas, O. (2015). Pre-service Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the
Physics, Chemistry, and Biology Topics. European J of Physics Education. Volume 6,
Issue 2, pp 41-53.
Bucat, R. (2005). Implications of Chemistry Education Research for Teaching Practice:
Content Knowledge as a Way Forward. Chemical Education International, Vol. 6,
No. 1, pp 1-2.
Chang, S. (2014). The Effects of a Professional Development Workshop on Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Student Learning in a Lower Elementary
Throwing Unit. School Science Review, 3(1), 78-83.
Chiu, MH and Wu, WL. (2013). A novel approach for investigating students’ learning
progression for the concept of phase transitions. Educ. Quim., 24(4), 373-380.
Cogill, J. (2008). Primary teachers’ interactive whiteboard practice across one year:
changes in pedagogy and influencing factors. EdD thesis King’s College University
of London. Retrieved September 20, 2017 from www.juliecogill.com
Cole, M. (2017). Spatial Reasoning and Understanding the particulate of Matter: A
Middle School Perspective. International Journal of Science Education. 1(2), 31-39.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary
Programs. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
DeVries, D. (2002). Developing Constructivist Early Childhood Curriculum: Practical
Principles and Activities. Teachers College Press: New York.
Dindar, A., Bektas, O., and Celik, A. (2010). What are the Pre-service Chemistry
Teachers’ Explanations on Chemistry Topics? The International Journal of research
in Teacher Education. Volume 1, 32-41.
Hammar, M. (2013). Teaching the Gas Properties and Gas laws: An Inquiry Unit with
Alternative Assessment. Eurasian Journal of Science. 6, 30-37.
Hightower, A., Delgado, R., Lloyd, S. Wittenstein, R., Sellers, K., and Swanson, C. (2011).
Improving Student Learning By Supporting Quality Teaching: Key Issues,
Effective Strategies. Bethesda: Editorial Project in Education, Inc.
Lekhavat, P. and Jones, L. (2009). The Effects of Adjunct Questions Emphasizing the
Particulate Nature of Matter on Students’ Understanding of Chemical Concepts
in Multimedia Lessons. Educacion Quimica. 351-359
Kabapmar, F. (2003). The differences between misconception assessment scale and
knowledge-comprehension level indicator. Educational Administration-Theory and
Practice, 35, 398-417.
Kellya, R. and Hansenb, S. (2017). Exploring the Design and Use of Molecular
Animations that Conflict for Understanding Chemical reactions. Quim. Nova, Vol.
, No. 4, 476-481
Khwaja, C. (2014). The Role of Subject Knowledge in the Effective Teaching of Primary
Science. Critical reviews of an area of literature. Retrieved September 20, 2017 from
http://www.educatejournal.org/index.php/educate/article/view/43/40
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and
potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45:2, 169-204
Kirbulut, Z. and Beeth, M.E. (2013). Representations of Fundamental Chemistry
Concepts in Relation to the Particulate Nature of Matter. International Journal of
Education in Mathematics, Science and technology. Volume 1, Number 2, pp 96-106.
K to 12 Curriculum Guide Science. (2013). Department of Education DepEd Complex,
Meralco Avenue Pasig City
Loughran, J. and Berry, A., and Mulhall, P. (2012). Understanding and Developing
Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. 2nd ed. Boston: Sense Publishers
Makaye, A., Ndunguru, P., and Mkoma, S. (2013). Students’ Knowledge on Particulate
Nature of matter in Chemistry. Tanzania Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences.
Volume 4, Issue 2, 648-655
Merrit, J. (2010). Tracking Students’ Understanding of the Particle Nature of Matter.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(2), 201-209.
Morell, L. and Wilson, M. (2016). Assessment as a tool to Understand Students’ Conceptions of the Structure of Matter. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 772
Nezvalova, D. (2011). Researching Science Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
Problems of Education on the 21st Century. Volume 35, 104-118.
Novick, S. and Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior High School Pupils’ Understanding of the
Particulate Nature of Matter: An Interview Study. Science Education. 62(3): 273-
Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (2002). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and
accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science 11,
-200.
Onwu, G. and Randal, E. (2006). Some aspects of students’ understanding of a
representational model of the particulate nature of matter in Chemistry in three
different countries. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 7 (4), 226-239
Ozmen, H. (2011). Effect of animation enhanced conceptual change texts on 6
th grade
students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and transformation
during phase changes. Computers & Education. 57, pp 1114-1126
Park, EJ., Light, G., Swarat, S. and Denise, D. (2009). Understanding Learning
Progression of Atomic Structure by Variantion Theory for Learning. Paper
presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA
Phenglengdi, B. (2015). Evaluation of the Molecular Level Visualization Approach for
Teaching and Learning Chemistry I Thailand. Science Education, 5(1), 26-33.
Riaz, M. (2004). Helping children to understand particulate nature of matter. Alberta
Science Education Journal, 36(2), 56-59.
Sanger, M. (2000). Using Particulate Drawings to determine ad Improve Students’ Conceptions of Pure Substances and Mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education. Vol.
, No. 6, pp 762-766
Shulma, L. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational
Researcher, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 4-14
Sibuyi, C. (2012). Effective Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teaching
Quadratic Functions in Mathematics. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 4(1),
-29.
Smith, P. and Plumley, C. (2016). A Review of the Research Literature on Teaching
about the Small Particle Model of Matter to Elementary Students. Horizon
Research, Inc.
Solso, R., MacLin, O., and MacLin, K. (2005). Cognitive Psychology, Eighth Edition. New
York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
The K to 12 BASIC EUDCATION PROGRAM. Department of Education. Department of
Education DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue Pasig City. As of March 12, 2012.
The National Strategies – Secondary. (2008). Explaining change processes using a
simple particle model of matter. Retrieved September 21, 2017 from
http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/research/cssme/ns-
tu/explaining_change_processes.pdf
Tsai, C. (1999). Overcoming Junior High School Students’ Misconceptions about
Microscopic Views of Phase Change: A Study of an Analogy Activity. Journal of
Science Education and Technology. Vol. 8, No. 1, 83
Tuysuz, M., Ekiz, B., Bektas, O., Uzuntiryakic, E. Tarkina, A., and Kutucu, S. (2011). Pre-
service chemistry teachers’ understanding of phase changes and dissolution at
macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences. 15, 452-455
Valanides, N. (2000). Primary Students Teachers’ Understanding of the Process and
Effects of Distillation. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe. Vol. 1,
No. 3, pp. 355-364
Von Glaserfield, T. (2001). Constructivism: The Implications For Laboratory Work.
Journal of Chemical Education.
Williams, L. (2015). Students’ understanding of Structure-Property Relationships and
the Role of Intermolecular Forces. Journal of Chemical Education, 12(2), 159-175.
Williamson, V. and Abraham, M. (1995). The effects of Computer Animation on the
Particulate Mental Models of College Chemistry Students. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching. Vol. 32, No. 5, pp 521-534
Yitbarek, S. (2003). Alternative Conceptions of Eight Chemical Concepts of General
Secondary and Preparatory Students. Online Journal in Science Education, 4, 123-
Zumdahl, S. and Zumdahl, S. (2014). Chemistry. 9th ed. United States: Cengage Learning.
