Models, molecules and misconceptions: A commentary on "secondary school students' misconceptions of covalent bonding"

Journal of Turkish Science Education

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 3-18

  Taber, Keith S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Pedagogical learning impediments; Student misconceptions; The bonding dichotomy teaching model; The octet alternative conceptual framework; Understanding chemical bonding

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955975068     PISSN: 13046020     EISSN: 13046020     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
2. Bell, B. (1995). Interviewing: a technique for assessing science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice (pp. 347-364). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Bloom, B. S. (1968). The cognitive domain. In L. H. Clark (Ed.), Strategies and Tactics in Secondary School Teaching: a book of readings (pp. 49-55). London: MacMillan.
4. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. New York: Vintage Books.
5. Claxton, G. (1993). Minitheories: a preliminary model for learning science. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas (Eds.), Children's Informal Ideas in Science (pp. 45-61). London: Routledge.
6. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Investigation of Secondary School, Undergraduate, and Graduate Learners' Mental Models of Ionic Bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 464-486.
7. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105-225.
8. Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.
9. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography-Students' and Teachers' Conceptions and Science Education. Kiel: http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.
10. Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children's science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623-633.
11. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
12. Gilbert, J. K., Watts, D. M., & Osborne, R. J. (1985). Eliciting student views using an interview-about-instances technique. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change (pp. 11-27). London: Academic Press.
13. Gilbert, J. K., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1985). A conceptual framework for science education: The case study of force and movement. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 107-120.
14. Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628.
15. Hofstein, A., Levy Nahum, T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Taber, K. S. (2010). Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 179-207.
16. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of 'the atom'. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 993-1009.
17. McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 114-122.
18. Millar, R. (Ed.). (1989). Doing Science: images of science in science education. London: The Falmer Press.
19. Nakiboglu, C., & Taber, K. S. (2010). Turkish students' perceptions of the atom in relation to a common teaching analogy. Paper presented at the International Science Education Symposium on the theme of Particulate and Structural Concepts of Matter.
20. Nakiboǧlu, C., Tsaparlis, G., & Taber, K. S. (2009). Student understanding of ionic bonding in three countries: molecular versus electrostatic thinking. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference.
21. Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates' bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 707-730.
22. Özmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: a literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147-159.
23. Peterson, R., Treagust, D., & Garnett, P. (1986). Identification of secondary students' misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure concepts using a diagnostic instrument. Research In Science Education, 16, 40-48.
24. Sánchez Gómez, P. J., & Martín, F. (2003). Quantum versus 'classical' chemistry in university chemistry education: A case study of the role of history in thinking the curriculum. Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 4(2), 131-148.
25. Solomon, J. (1993). Four frames for a field. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas (Eds.), Children's Informal Ideas in Science (pp. 1-19). London: Routledge.
26. Taber, K. S. (1994). Misunderstanding the Ionic Bond. Education in Chemistry, 31(4), 100-103.
27. Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597-608.
28. Taber, K. S. (2000a). Case studies and generalisability-grounded theory and research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 469-487.
29. Taber, K. S. (2000b). Finding the optimum level of simplification: the case of teaching about heat and temperature. Physics Education, 35(5), 320-325.
30. Taber, K. S. (2001). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner's conceptions: a typology of learning impediments. Educational Studies, 27(2), 159-171.
31. Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical Misconceptions-Prevention, Diagnosis and Cure: Theoretical background (Vol. 1). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
32. Taber, K. S. (2003). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5(1), 43-84.
33. Taber, K. S. (2007). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: a guide for teachers. London: SAGE.
34. Taber, K. S. (2008). Exploring conceptual integration in student thinking: evidence from a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1915-1943.
35. Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing Science Education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.
36. Taber, K. S. (2010). Straw men and false dichotomies: Overcoming philosophical confusion in chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(5), 552-558.
37. Taber, K. S., & Coll, R. K. (2002). Chemical bonding. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Research-based Practice (pp. 213-234). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers BV.
38. Taber, K. S., & Tan, K. C. D. (2011). 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. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 259-297.
39. Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (1996). The secret life of the chemical bond: students' anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 557-568.
40. Ünal, S., Çali{dotless}k, M., Ayas, A. ü., & Coll, R. K. (2006). A review of chemical bonding studies: needs, aims, methods of exploring students' conceptions, general knowledge claims and students' alternative conceptions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(2), 141-172.
41. Ünal, S., Coştu, B., & Ayas, A. (2010). Secondary school students' misconceptions of covalent bonding. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(2), 3-29.
42. Watts, M., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1981). A survey of some children's ideas about force. Physics Education, 16(6), 360-365.
43. White, R. T. (1985). Interview protocols and dimensions of cognitive structure. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change (pp. 51-59). London: Academic Press.