Characterizing and representing student's conceptual knowledge of chemical bonding

Chemical bonding knowledge is fundamental and essential to the understanding of almost every topic in chemistry, but it is very difficult to learn. While many studies have characterized some of the central elements of knowledge of this topic, these elements of knowledge have not been systematically organized. We describe the development and testing of a matrix that represents: (A) a systematic organization of the conceptual knowledge on chemical bonding required at high school level and (B) a tool for representing students' conceptual knowledge of this topic. The matrix contains three strands: the structure of matter at the nanoscopic level, electrostatic interactions between charged entities, and energy aspects related to bonding. In each strand there are hierarchically ordered cells that contain fine grain elements of knowledge. Using various instruments, students’ conceptual knowledge of chemical bonding was assessed and mapped onto the matrix, generating graphical representations of their knowledge. New computational and online technologies enable automatic data collection and its analysis. Therefore, we believe that this organization and representation of small grain size elements of knowledge can be a useful for the development of a detailed diagnostic tool of knowledge of chemical bonding.

[1]  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 .

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

[3]  Hatice Asuman Küçüközer.  L'étude de l'évolution de la compréhension conceptuelle des élèves avec un enseignement : cas de la mécanique en 1ère S , 2005 .

[4]  A. Shusterman,et al.  Teaching Chemistry with Electron Density Models , 1997 .

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

[6]  D. Treagust,et al.  Identification of secondary students' misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure concepts using a diagnostic instrument , 1986 .

[7]  A. diSessa.  Toward an Epistemology of Physics , 1993 .

[8]  J. Dudley Herron,et al.  The Chemistry Classroom: Formulas for Successful Teaching , 1996 .

[9]  Mare Taagepera,et al.  Mapping Students' Thinking Patterns in Learning Organic Chemistry by the Use of Knowledge Space Theory , 2000 .

[10]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment , 2009 .

[11]  D. Treagust,et al.  Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning , 2003 .

[12]  A. Stacy,et al.  Contrasting the expectations for student understanding of chemistry with levels achieved: a brief case-study of student nurses , 2006 .

[13]  Vicente Talanquer,et al.  On Cognitive Constraints and Learning Progressions: The case of “structure of matter” , 2009 .

[14]  Angelica M. Stacy,et al.  Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas , 2002 .

[15]  H. Barke,et al.  Structure/Property Relationships , 2002, Superalloys.

[16]  J. Dudley Herron,et al.  Problems associated with concept analysis , 1977 .

[17]  Gregory J. Kelly,et al.  How Students Argue Scientific Claims: A Rhetorical‐Semantic Analysis , 2003 .

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

[19]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Learning Processes in Chemistry: Drawing Upon Cognitive Resources to Learn About the Particulate Structure of Matter , 2010 .

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

[21]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education , 1998 .

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

[23]  Michael O. Hurst,et al.  How We Teach Molecular Structure to Freshmen , 2002 .

[24]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  The Knowledge Integration Perspective on Learning and Instruction , 2005 .

[25]  R. Cervellati,et al.  The understanding of the atomic orbital concept by Italian high school students , 1981 .

[26]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom , 2001 .

[27]  R. Gillespie.  The Great Ideas of Chemistry , 1997 .

[28]  Georgios Tsaparlis,et al.  Students' levels of explanations, models, and misconceptions in basic quantum chemistry: A phenomenographic study , 2009 .

[29]  Joel J. Mintzes.  Chapter 3 – Assessing science understanding: The epistemological vee diagram , 2005 .

[30]  K. Taber,et al.  LEARNERS’ EXPLANATIONS FOR CHEMICAL PHENOMENA , 2000 .

[31]  Stephen K. Ritter,et al.  THE CHEMICAL BOND: Whether it's sextuple bonds or bonds involving no shared electrons, chemists chase down new MODES OF BONDING , 2007 .

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

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

[34]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  CONCEPTUALIZING QUANTA: ILLUMINATING THE GROUND STATE OF STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF ATOMIC ORBITALS , 2002 .

[35]  Robert M. Gagné,et al.  Memory Structures and Learning Outcomes , 1978 .

[36]  J. Novak.  Concept maps and Vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning , 1990 .

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

[38]  B. Eylon,et al.  A longitudinal study of junior high school students' conceptions of the structure of materials , 2008 .

[39]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Students Becoming Chemists: Developing Representationl Competence , 2005 .

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

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

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

[43]  J. Gilbert.  On the Nature of “Context” in Chemical Education , 2006 .

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

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

[46]  I. Galili,et al.  The influence of an historically oriented course on students’ content knowledge in optics evaluated by means of facets-schemes analysis , 2000 .

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

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

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

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

[51]  W. Robinson,et al.  An alternative framework for chemical bonding , 1998 .

[52]  Eliciting Student Views Using an Interview-About-Instances Technique. , 1981 .

[53]  CONSTRUCTION OF STUDENTS' KNOWLEDGE IN RELATION TO A TEACHING SEQUENCE: HYPOTHESES ON LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE , 2007 .