UNDERSTANDING IONISATION ENERGY: PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS

There are many topics in chemistry where student performance in formal assessments may be considered to largely depend upon the understanding and application of concepts that may be un-problematically labelled ‘chemical’: concepts such as ‘element’, ‘neutralisation’, ‘addition reaction’, etc. However, there are also a number of curriculum topics from within chemistry where students are required to be able to demonstrate and apply ideas which in themselves may be seen as ‘belonging’ more to physics than chemistry. One such topic is that of ionisation energy, where basic electrostatic principles must be understood and applied. This paper discusses responses to a diagnostic instrument on Ionisation Energy which highlight student difficulties appreciating conventional physical principles. The instrument comprised 30 true-false items and was administered to over 300 college level chemistry students in 17 institutions in the UK. Respondents commonly agreed with statements reflecting previously identified alternative conceptions relating to the ‘sharing’ of nuclear force, and to the unconditional stability of species with full shells. The implications of the findings for the teaching of chemistry are considered, with particular reference to the debate about the extent to which chemistry can or should be reduced to physics. [Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.: 2003, 4, 149-169]

[1]  D. Michael Watts A study of schoolchildren's alternative frameworks of the concept of force , 1983 .

[2]  R. Driver,et al.  Young people's images of science , 1996 .

[3]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  Chemistry lessons for universities?: a review of constructivist ideas , 2000 .

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

[5]  A. Johnstone Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem , 1991 .

[6]  David P. Ausubel,et al.  The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View , 2000 .

[7]  A. F. Chalmers,et al.  What Is This Thing Called Science , 1976 .

[8]  D. Treagust,et al.  Evaluating students' understanding of chemical bonding , 1999 .

[9]  K. Taber,et al.  An explanatory gestalt of essence: students’ conceptions of the ‘natural’ in physical phenomena , 1996 .

[10]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Models in explanations, Part 1 : Horses for courses? , 1998 .

[11]  L. Cohen,et al.  Research Methods in Education , 1980 .

[12]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  CONSTRUCTING CHEMICAL CONCEPTS IN THE CLASSROOM?: USING RESEARCH TO INFORM PRACTICE , 2001 .

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

[14]  Mike Watts,et al.  The secret life of the chemical bond: students’ anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding , 1996 .

[15]  K. Taber Finding the Optimum Level of Simplification: The Case of Teaching about Heat and Temperature. , 2000 .

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

[17]  Eric R. Scerri The Electronic Configuration Model, Quantum Mechanics and Reduction , 1991, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[18]  Jon Turney,et al.  Explaining Science in the Classroom , 1997 .

[19]  Annis Hapkiewicz,et al.  Clarifying Chemical Bonding. Overcoming Our Misconceptions. , 1991 .

[20]  Hans-Jürgen Schmidt Students' misconceptions—Looking for a pattern , 1997 .

[21]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  The Mismatch between Assumed Prior Knowledge and the Learner's Conceptions: A typology of learning impediments , 2001 .

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

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

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

[25]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  When the analogy breaks down: modelling the atom on the solar system , 2001 .

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

[27]  Quality, Level, and Acceptability, of Explanation in Chemical Education , 2001 .

[28]  M. Kramer Concept formation. , 1970, Nursing Research Conference.

[29]  M. Bishop What is this thing called Science , 1996 .

[30]  R. Hackett Young People's Images of Science , 1996 .

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

[32]  Carol L. Smith,et al.  Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts , 1991 .

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

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

[35]  J. Bliss Piaget and after: the case of learning science , 1995 .

[36]  K. Taber Ideas about ionisation energy : a diagnostic instrument , 1999 .

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

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

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