Teaching and Learning of the Chemical Bonding Concept: Problems and Some Pedagogical Issues and Recommendations

This research consists of a diagnostic study, followed by a curricular development and implementation regarding the teaching of the bonding concept. The diagnostic study focuses on students’ difficulties over two decades as regards this concept. We focused on how the structure and content of the 12th-grade matriculation examinations conducted in Israel influence the way bonding is taught and assessed. The traditional pedagogical approach for teaching bonding is often overly simplistic and not aligned with the most up-to-date scientific ideas. Based on the analysis of this study and supported by researches worldwide, we suggest that the general approach of the bonding curriculum along with the current system of assessment causes students to study by rote memorization. We then describe the development of a new conceptual framework that provides an advanced scientific and pedagogical foundation for the teaching of bonding; this process was conducted with chemistry lead-teachers, senior chemistry educators, and eminent chemists. In general, we suggest adopting a new approach that rationalizes all bonds and structures based on a small set of underlying assumptions. We also suggest that one of the key goals of the proposed framework is to stress that a continuum scale exists between extreme cases of qualitatively different bonding scenarios. The research includes the implementation of this approach in ten classes, and our study indicates that both students and teachers acquired a much deeper understanding of the underling key concepts.

[1]  Yehudit Judy Dori,et al.  From Nationwide Standardized Testing to School-Based Alternative Embedded Assessment in Israel: Students' Performance in the Matriculation 2000 Project , 2003 .

[2]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Children's science and its consequences for teaching , 1982 .

[3]  George M. Bodner,et al.  Mental Models : The Role of Representations in Problem Solving in Chemistry PROCEEDINGS , 2002 .

[4]  Martha Stone Wiske.  Teaching for Understanding. Linking Research with Practice. The Jossey-Bass Education Series. , 1998 .

[5]  Shlomo Vinner.  The Pseudo-Conceptual and the Pseudo-Analytical Thought Processes in Mathematics Learning , 1997 .

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

[7]  Linus Pauling,et al.  The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals , 1941, Nature.

[8]  R. Glaser,et al.  Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment , 2001 .

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

[10]  Dan Douglas.  Alternatives in assessment , 2014 .

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

[12]  Martha Stone Wiske,et al.  Teaching for understanding : linking research with practice , 1998 .

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

[14]  Sara Salloum,et al.  Relationships between selective cognitive variables and students' ability to solve chemistry problems , 2004 .

[15]  S. Erduran.  Examining the Mismatch between Pupil and Teacher Knowledge in Acid-Base Chemistry. , 2003 .

[16]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Development of Student Understanding: a case study of stability and lability in cognitive structure , 1995 .

[17]  Clive Sutton,et al.  Beliefs about science and beliefs about language , 1996 .

[18]  D. Treagust,et al.  In search of explanatory frameworks: an analysis of Richard Feynman's lecture 'Atoms in motion' , 2000 .

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

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

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

[22]  Jean Lythcott,et al.  Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry , 1990 .

[23]  W. Robinson,et al.  Chemistry Problem-Solving: Symbol, Macro, Micro, and Process Aspects , 2003 .

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

[25]  Vanessa Kind.  Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress , 2009 .

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

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

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

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

[30]  Tami Levy Nahum,et al.  CAN FINAL EXAMINATIONS AMPLIFY STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS IN CHEMISTRY? , 2004 .

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

[32]  J. Anderson,et al.  How Do Organic Chemistry Students Understand and Apply Hydrogen Bonding , 2001 .

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

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

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

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

[37]  R. Kosloff,et al.  The Uncertainty Principle and Covalent Bonding , 2006 .

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