Identifying Atomic Structure as a Threshold Concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness

Atomic theory or the nature of matter is a principal concept in science and science education. This has, however, been complicated by the difficulty students have in learning the concept and the subsequent construction of many alternative models. To understand better the conceptual barriers to learning atomic structure, this study explores the troublesome nature of this fundamental scientific concept. In order to illustrate the distinction of student understanding by threshold barriers, this study chose three particularly high‐achieving students from an original interview sample of 20 students who were selected from an introductory college chemistry course. The pre‐course and post‐course interview responses were examined and compared in detail. This study considers the concepts of ‘probability’ and ‘energy quantization’ to both describe the structure of the threshold of understanding students’ need to negotiate in their construction of the target model of atomic structure. In this respect, this study suggests atomic structure as a possible threshold concept for further study in science. Identifying the nature and structure of the threshold of understanding confronting students, and analyzing the troublesomeness of atomic structure, provides valuable information for understanding student learning difficulties, and insight into how they may be addressed.

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

[2]  Rosária Justi,et al.  History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of 'the atom' , 2000 .

[3]  R. Driver,et al.  Children's Ideas in Science , 1985 .

[4]  J. Gilbert,et al.  Explanations with Models in Science Education , 2000 .

[5]  Chin-Chung Tsai,et al.  Overcoming Junior High School Students' Misconceptions About Microscopic Views of Phase Change: A Study of an Analogy Activity , 1999 .

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

[7]  V. Turner,et al.  The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure , 1978 .

[8]  Joseph Nussbaum,et al.  Junior high school pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study , 1978 .

[9]  John Leach,et al.  The Demands of Learning Science Concepts--Issues of Theory and Practice. , 1995 .

[10]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Mediating Mental Models of Metals: Acknowledging the Priority of the Learner's Prior Learning. , 2003 .

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

[12]  Allan G. Harrison,et al.  Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry , 2000 .

[13]  R. Driver,et al.  Pupils and Paradigms: a Review of Literature Related to Concept Development in Adolescent Science Students , 1978 .

[14]  Pamela J. Garnett,et al.  Students' Alternative Conceptions in Chemistry: A Review of Research and Implications for Teaching and Learning , 1995 .

[15]  R. Land.  Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (1): linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines , 2003 .

[16]  M. Nakhleh.  Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions , 1992 .

[17]  H. Bent.  Provocative Opinion: Should Orbitals Be X-Rated in Beginning Chemistry Courses?. , 1984 .

[18]  Alan K. Griffiths,et al.  Grade-12 Students' Misconceptions Relating to Fundamental Characteristics of Atoms and Molecules. , 1992 .

[19]  M. Linn,et al.  Learning and Instruction: An Examination of Four Research Perspectives in Science Education , 1988 .

[20]  D. Perkins.  The Many Faces of Constructivism. , 1999 .

[21]  J. Dudley Herron,et al.  Piaget in the classroom. Guidelines for applications , 1978 .

[22]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  QUANTUM-CHEMICAL CONCEPTS: ARE THEY SUITABLE FOR SECONDARY STUDENTS? , 2002 .

[23]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Learners' mental models of metallic bonding: A cross‐age study , 2003 .

[24]  Noel Entwistle,et al.  Styles of learning and teaching , 1981 .

[25]  Alex H. Johnstone,et al.  TEACHING OF CHEMISTRY - LOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL? , 2000 .

[26]  Bat-Sheva Eylon,et al.  Is an atom of copper malleable , 1986 .

[27]  K. Fisher.  A misconception in biology: Amino acids and translation , 1985 .

[28]  Ryszard M. Janiuk.  The process of learning chemistry: A review of the studies , 1993 .

[29]  Ronald J. Gillespie.  What is wrong with the general chemistry course , 1991 .

[30]  Stephen J. Hawkes,et al.  Why should they know that , 1992 .

[31]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas , 2005 .

[32]  K. Berry.  What should we teach them in high school , 1986 .

[33]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Concepts, Misconceptions and Alternative Conceptions: Changing Perspectives in Science Education , 1983 .

[34]  Mary B. Nakhleh,et al.  Narrowing the Gap between Concepts and Algorithms in Freshman Chemistry , 1996 .

[35]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  Atomic and Molecular Structure in Chemical Education: A Critical Analysis from Various Perspectives of Science Education. , 1997 .

[36]  J. Confrey.  A Review of the Research on Student Conceptions in Mathematics, Science, and Programming , 1990 .

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

[38]  Jan H. F. Meyer,et al.  Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge , 2006 .

[39]  Ellen J. Yezierski,et al.  Misconceptions about the Particulate Nature of Matter. Using Animations To Close the Gender Gap , 2006 .

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

[41]  Peter G. Markow,et al.  Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: Students' perceptions and effects on achievement , 1998 .

[42]  J. Lagowski.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[43]  B. Pestel.  Teaching problem solving without modeling through “thinking aloud pair problem solving” , 1993 .

[44]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[45]  John J. Clement.  Analogy Generation in Scientific Problem Solving. , 1981 .

[46]  José María de Posada.  Conceptions of high school students concerning the internal structure of metals and their electric conduction: structure and evolution , 1997 .

[47]  Jere Confrey,et al.  Chapter 1: A Review of the Research on Student Conceptions in Mathematics, Science, and Programming , 1990 .

[48]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  A conceptual framework for science education: The case study of force and movement , 1985 .

[49]  Joseph D. Novak,et al.  Learning creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools , 1998 .

[50]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Science teaching and children's views of the world , 1983 .

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

[52]  Hans Niedderer,et al.  A learning pathway in high‐school level quantum atomic physics , 1998 .

[53]  Rocky Ross,et al.  Mental models , 2004, SIGA.

[54]  P. Scott,et al.  The concept of learning demand as a tool for designing teaching sequences , 2000 .

[55]  D. Perkins.  Constructivism and troublesome knowledge , 2006 .

[56]  Peter Davies,et al.  Threshold Concepts: how can we recognise them? , 2006 .

[57]  W. Jensen.  Logic, History, and the Teaching of Chemistry: III. One Chemical Revolution or Three? , 1998 .

[58]  Thomas W. Shiland.  WHAT'S THE USE OF ALL THIS THEORY : THE ROLE OF QUANTUM MECHANICS IN HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY TEXTBOOKS , 1995 .