Coulombic interaction in Finnish middle school chemistry: a systemic perspective on students' conceptual structure of chemical bonding

The aim of this study was to design a novel and holistic way to teach chemical bonding at the middle school level according to research on the teaching and learning of bonding. A further aim was to investigate high achieving middle school students' conceptual structures concerning chemical bonding by using a systemic perspective. Students in one metropolitan area middle school were introduced to this newly designed model and their conceptual structures were studied by a clinical interview (n = 8) at the time when the students were concluding their studies at the middle school. The interview data were analysed by employing a systemic perspective on conceptual structures. Elements of conceptual structures such as concepts, simple models (mnemonic devices), explaining schemas, attributes and hypothesis constructs were identified and coded. Connections between the knowledge elements were also identified. An understanding of these connections helps to illuminate which components are necessary to build an adequate conceptual structure. The study revealed that applying principles relating to Coulombic interaction to understand chemical bonding requires the simultaneous appreciation of several factors: First, electron shells have to be understood in terms of energy levels. Second, the distance between the outer electrons and the nucleus has to be understood on the basis of electron shell construction. On the other hand, the effective nuclear charge also needs to be taken into account. The study introduces two new points of view to chemistry education research (CER): (1) a teaching model of chemical bonding that emphasises electric interaction as the background of most bonding types was developed in the study. This responds to the identified need in CER to test alternative teaching models that avoid the octet framework. (2) In the field of chemistry education research, a systemic approach has not previously been widely used for the examination of conceptual structures. In addition, the systemic perception of the network structure, which consists of these constructions, helps to explain in more detail the relationship between the separate concepts and the constructions and their significance as a whole.

[1]  Onno De Jong,et al.  Representations of chemical bonding models in school textbooks – help or hindrance for understanding? , 2013 .

[2]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  The significance of implicit knowledge for learning and teaching chemistry , 2014 .

[3]  José María de Posada.  The presentation of metallic bonding in high school science textbooks during three decades: Science educational reforms and substantive changes of tendencies , 1999 .

[4]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  The sharing‐out of nuclear attraction: or ‘I can't think about physics in chemistry’ , 1998 .

[5]  Vicente A Talanquer,et al.  Explanations and Teleology in Chemistry Education , 2007 .

[6]  Karolina Broman,et al.  Students' application of chemical concepts when solving chemistry problems in different contexts , 2014 .

[7]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners' mental models of ionic bonding , 2003 .

[8]  A. diSessa,et al.  What changes in conceptual change , 1998 .

[9]  J. Gilbert.  Chemical education: towards research-based practice , 2003 .

[10]  Chia-Yu Wang,et al.  Exploring conceptual frameworks of models of atomic structures and periodic variations, chemical bonding, and molecular shape and polarity: a comparison of undergraduate general chemistry students with high and low levels of content knowledge , 2013 .

[11]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  LOST WITHOUT TRACE OR NOT BROUGHT TO MIND? - A CASE STUDY OF REMEMBERING AND FORGETTING OF COLLEGE SCIENCE , 2003 .

[12]  G. Sproul.  Electronegativity and Bond Type: Predicting Bond Type , 2001 .

[13]  P. Thagard,et al.  Modelling Conceptual Revolutions , 1996, Dialogue.

[14]  Avi Hofstein,et al.  Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding , 2010 .

[15]  Kalle Juuti,et al.  Learning to apply models of materials while explaining their properties , 2014 .

[16]  Carol L. Smith,et al.  Student Conceptions and Conceptual Change: Three Overlapping Phases of Research , 2014 .

[17]  S. Carey.  Précis of The Origin of Concepts , 2011, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[18]  Gayle Nicoll,et al.  A report of undergraduates' bonding misconceptions , 2001 .

[19]  The Origin of the Metallic Bond , 2009 .

[20]  K. Taber.  Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure , 2000 .

[21]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Case studies and generalizability: grounded theory and research in science education , 2000 .

[22]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Grade-12 students' misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure , 1989 .

[23]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Conceptual change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education , 2008 .

[24]  Alipaşa Ayas,et al.  A review of chemical bonding studies: needs, aims, methods of exploring students’ conceptions, general knowledge claims and students’ alternative conceptions , 2006 .

[25]  Haluk Özmen,et al.  Some Student Misconceptions in Chemistry: A Literature Review of Chemical Bonding , 2004 .

[26]  A. diSessa.  An Interactional Analysis of Clinical Interviewing , 2007 .

[27]  M. Chi,et al.  From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts , 1994 .

[28]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  The Many Faces of High School Chemistry , 2014 .

[29]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  The Insidious Nature of ‘Hard‐Core’ Alternative Conceptions: Implications for the constructivist research programme of patterns in high school students’ and pre‐service teachers’ thinking about ionisation energy , 2011 .

[30]  D. Heskett,et al.  Hybridization and bond-orbital components in site-specific X-ray photoelectron spectra of rutile TiO2. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[31]  J. Krajcik,et al.  Developing a new teaching approach for the chemical bonding concept aligned with current scientific and pedagogical knowledge , 2007 .

[32]  M. Pettersson,et al.  A Stable Argon Compound. , 2000 .

[33]  David Fortus,et al.  Characterizing and representing student's conceptual knowledge of chemical bonding , 2012 .

[34]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Models and Modelling: Routes to More Authentic Science Education , 2004 .

[35]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry , 1996 .

[36]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Prospective pedagogy for teaching chemical bonding for smart and sustainable learning , 2014 .

[37]  David F. Treagust,et al.  An Investigation into the Relationship between Students’ Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter and their Understanding of Chemical Bonding , 2008 .

[38]  Hong Kwen Boo,et al.  Students' Understandings of Chemical Bonds and the Energetics of Chemical Reactions. , 1998 .

[39]  Georgios Tsaparlis.  Atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals and related concepts: Conceptual difficulties among chemistry students , 1997 .

[40]  J. Yates,et al.  Are conceptions of motion based on a naive theory or on prototypes? , 1988, Cognition.

[41]  Douglas B. Clark.  Longitudinal Conceptual Change in Students' Understanding of Thermal Equilibrium: An Examination of the Process of Conceptual Restructuring , 2006 .

[42]  Ismo T. Koponen,et al.  Concept Development in Learning Physics: The Case of Electric Current and Voltage Revisited , 2013 .

[43]  Victor R. Lee,et al.  Framing in cognitive clinical interviews about intuitive science knowledge: Dynamic student understandings of the discourse interaction , 2012 .

[44]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Learners' Mental Models of Chemical Bonding , 2001 .

[45]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[46]  Kent J. Crippen,et al.  Variation theory: A theory of learning and a useful theoretical framework for chemical education research , 2013 .

[47]  Teaching and Learning Chemistry , 2017 .

[48]  Phil Seok Oh,et al.  What Teachers of Science Need to Know about Models: An overview , 2011 .

[49]  Helvi Kyngäs,et al.  The qualitative content analysis process. , 2008, Journal of advanced nursing.

[50]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  BUILDING THE STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS OF CHEMISTRY: SOME CONSIDERATIONS FROM EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH , 2001 .

[51]  K. Taber.  Ethical considerations of chemistry education research involving ‘human subjects’ , 2014 .

[52]  Harold H. Harris,et al.  Chemical Misconceptions-Prevention, Diagnosis and Cure; Volume I: Theoretical Background; Volume II: Classroom Resources (Taber, Keith) , 2003 .

[53]  Annette Hilton,et al.  Representational Classroom Practices that Contribute to Students’ Conceptual and Representational Understanding of Chemical Bonding , 2011 .

[54]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Students’ understanding of boiling points and intermolecular forces , 2009 .

[55]  Tami Levy Nahum,et al.  A New "Bottom-Up" Framework for Teaching Chemical Bonding , 2008 .

[56]  Matthew D. Wodrich,et al.  Quantification of "fuzzy" chemical concepts: a computational perspective. , 2012, Chemical Society reviews.

[57]  Carol L. Smith,et al.  Student Conceptions and Conceptual Change , 2014 .

[58]  Robin Millar,et al.  Students' reasoning about basic chemical thermodynamics and chemical bonding: what changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? , 2000 .

[59]  K. Taber.  Shifting sands: a case study of conceptual development as competition between alternative conceptions , 2001 .

[60]  Neil Taylor,et al.  MENTAL MODELS IN CHEMISTRY: SENIOR CHEMISTRY STUDENTS MENTAL MODELS OF CHEMICAL BONDING , 2002 .