Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding

Studies in Science Education

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 179-207

  Nahum, Tami Levy ^a   Mamlok Naaman, Rachel ^a   Hofstein, Avi ^a   Taber, Keith S ^b  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Alternative frameworks; Chemical bonding; Educational complications; Fundamental principles; Misconceptions; Models

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958085529     PISSN: 03057267     EISSN: 19408412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2010.504548     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Abdoolatiff, S., & Narod, F.B. (2009). Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations in the teaching of 'Atomic structure and bonding'. In M. Gupta-Bhowon, S. Jhaumeer-Laulloo, H. Li Kam Wah, & P. Ramasami (Eds.), Chemistry Education in the ICT Age (pp. 85-100). Dordrecht: Springer.
2. Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students' understanding of metallic bonding. Research in Science Education, 38, 401-420.
3. Ashkenazi, G., & Kosloff, R. (2006). The uncertainty principle and covalent bonding. The Chemical Educator, 11, 66-76. doi: 10.1333/s00897061015a
4. Atzmon, A. (1991). Natural science curriculum as designer of the image of science using rhetorical patterns within the socio-political system (unpublished doctoral thesis). The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
5. Barnea, N., & Dori, Y.J. (2000). Computerized molecular modeling: The new technology for enhancing model perception among chemistry educators and learners. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 1, 109-120. http://www.uoi.gr/cerp/
6. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64-66.
7. Bertini, L., Cargnoni, F., & Gatti, C. (2007). Chemical insight into electron density and wave functions: Software developments and applications to crystals, molecular complexes and materials science. Theoretical Chemistry Accounts: Theory, Computation, and Modeling (Theoretica Chimica Acta), 117, 847-884.
8. Bodner, G.M., & Domin, D.S. (1998). Mental models: The role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24-30. http://www.rsc.org/ images/Vol_4_No1_tcm18-7038.pdf
9. Butts, B., & Smith, R. (1987). HSC chemistry students' understanding of the structure and properties of molecular and ionic compounds. Research in Science Education, 17, 192-201.
10. Carpi, A. (2001). Improvements in undergraduate science education using web-based instructional modules: The natural science pages. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1709-1712.
11. Carr, M. (1984). Model confusion in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 14, 97-103.
12. Chiu, M-H., & Wu, H-K. (2009). The roles of multimedia in the teaching and learning of the triplet relationship in chemistry. In J.K. Gilbert & D.F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 251-283). Dordrecht: Springer.
13. Clark, D. (2004). Hands-on investigation in internet environments: Teaching thermal equilibrium. In M.C. Linn, E.A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 175-200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Coll, R.K., & Treagust, D.F. (2001). Learners' mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357-382.
15. 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, 464-486.
16. Cros, D., Maurin, M., Amouroux, R., Chastrette, M., Leber, J., & Fayol, M. (1986). Conceptions of first year university students of the constitution of matter and the notions of acids and bases. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 305-313.
17. Culotta, E., & Koshland D.E., Jr. (1992). NO news is good news. Science, 258, 1862-1865.
18. de Vos, W., & Pilot, A. (2001). Acids and bases in layers: The stratal structure of an ancient topic. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 494-499.
19. Fensham, P. (1975). Concept formation. In D.J. Daniels (Ed.), New movements in the study and teaching of chemistry (pp. 199-217). London: Temple Smith.
20. Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2007). The influence of web-based chemistry learning on students' perceptions, attitudes, and achievements. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(2), 179-197.
21. Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2009). Enhancing students' understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Education, 46, 289-310.
22. Gabel, D. (1996, July). The complexity of chemistry: Research for teaching in the 21st century. Paper presented at the International Conference on Chemical Education, Brisbane, Australia.
23. Gilbert, J. (1998). Explaining with models. In M. Ratcliffe (ed.), ASE guide to secondary science education (pp. 159-166). London: Stanley Thornes.
24. Gilbert, J.K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 115-130. doi: 10.1007/ s10763-004-3186-4
25. Gilbert, J.K., Osborne, R.J., & Fensham, P.J. (1982). Children's science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66, 623-633.
26. Gillespie, R.J. (1997). The great ideas of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 862-864.
27. Glasersfeld, E.V. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140. doi: 10.1007/BF00869951
28. 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, 611-628.
29. Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352-381.
30. Henderleiter, J., Smart, R., Anderson, J., & Elian, O. (2001). How do organic chemistry students understand and apply hydrogen bonding? Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1126-1130.
31. Herron, J.D. (1996). The chemistry classroom: Formulas for successful teaching. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
32. Hurst, O. (2002). How we teach molecular structure to freshmen. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 763-764.
33. Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
34. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1983). Power and staff development through research on training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
35. 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, 993-1009.
36. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J.K. (2002). Models and modeling in chemical education. In J.K. Gilbert, O.D. Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust, & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47-68). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
37. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45, 169-204.
38. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Modelling students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J.K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121-145). Dordrecht: Springer.
39. Laing, M. (1993). A tetrahedron of bonding. Education in Chemistry, 30, 160-163.
40. Levy Nahum, T. (2007). Teaching the concept of chemical bonding in high-school: Developing and implementing a new framework based on the analysis of misleading systemic factors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel (In Hebrew).
41. Levy Nahum, T., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). Can final examinations amplify students' misconceptions in chemistry. Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 5, 301-325. http://www.uoi.gr/cerp/
42. Levy Nahum, T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Developing a new teaching approach for the chemical bonding concept aligned with current scientific and pedagogical knowledge. Science Education, 91, 579-603.
43. Levy Nahum, T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Kronik, L. (2008). A new 'bottomup' framework for teaching chemical bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 1680-1685.
44. Linn, M.C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J.D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517-538.
45. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 258-271.
46. Lunetta, V.N., & Hofstein, A. (1981). Simulation in science education. Science Education, 65, 252-273.
47. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Pedagogical content knowledge and science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
48. Minkin, V. L. (1999). Glossary of terms used in theoretical organic chemistry. Pure Applied Chemistry, 71, 1919-1981. doi:10.1351/pac199971101919
49. Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N.B. (2000). Student motivation and internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Education, 37, 459-479.
50. Myers, R.T. (1979). Physical and chemical properties and bonding of metallic elements. Journal of Chemical Education, 56, 712-713.
51. Naaman, R., & Vager, Z.J. (1999). Dipole moment of non-rigid molecular systems: The dipole moment of hydrochloric dimmers. Journal of Chemical Physics, 110, 359-362. doi: 10.1063/1.478132
52. nH, n=0,1,2) clusters studied by infrared depletion spectroscopy. Chemical Physics, 277, 171-178.
53. Nakiboǧlu, C., Tsaparlis, G., & Taber, K.S. (2009, September). Student understanding of ionic bonding in three countries: Molecular versus electrostatic thinking. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.
54. Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates' bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 707-730.
55. Papageorgiou, G., & Johnson, P. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils' understanding of phenomena? International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1299-1317.
56. Pauling, L. (1960). The nature of the chemical bond, and the structure of molecules and crystals: An introduction to modern structural chemistry (3rd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
57. Peterson, R.F., & Treagust, D.F. (1989). Grade-12 students' misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure. Journal of Chemical Education, 66, 459-460.
58. Peterson, R.F., Treagust, D.F., & 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.
59. Peterson, R.F., Treagust, D.F., & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and-12 students' concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 301-314.
60. Robinson, W. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 978-982.
61. 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, 131-148. http://www.uoi.gr/cerp/
62. Sproul, G.J. (2001). Electronegativity and bond type: Predicting bond type. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 387-390.
63. Taber, K.S. (1994a, September). Can Kelly's triads be used to elicit aspects of chemistry students' conceptual frameworks? Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Oxford. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/ 00001482.htm
64. Taber, K.S. (1994b). Misunderstanding the ionic bond. Education in Chemistry, 31, 100-103.
65. Taber, K.S. (1997a). Student understanding of ionic bonding: Molecular versus electrostatic thinking? School Science Review, 78(285), 85-95.
66. Taber, K.S. (1997b). Understanding chemical bonding: The development of A level students' understanding of the concept of chemical bonding (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
67. Taber, K.S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 597-608.
68. Taber, K.S. (2000). Multiple frameworks? Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 399-417.
69. Taber, K.S. (2001a). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 2, 123-158. http:// www.uoi.gr/cerp/
70. Taber, K.S. (2001b). Shifting sands: A case study of conceptual development as competition between alternative conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 731-753.
71. Taber, K.S. (2002a). Chemical misconceptions-prevention, diagnosis and cure: Theoretical background (Vol. 1). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
72. Taber, K.S. (2002b). Conceptualizing quanta: Illuminating the ground state of student understanding of atomic orbitals. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 3, 145-158. http://www.uoi.gr/cerp/
73. Taber, K.S. (2003a). Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learner's prior learning. Science Education, 87, 732-758.
74. Taber, K.S. (2003b). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: Fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5, 43-84. doi: 10.1023/ A:1021995612705
75. Taber, K.S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89(1), 94-116.
76. Taber, K.S. (2009a). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.
77. Taber, K.S. (2009b). Learning at the symbolic level. In J.K. Gilbert & D.F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 75-108). Dordrecht: Springer.
78. Taber, K.S., & Coll, R. (2002). Bonding. In J.K. Gilbert, O.D. Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust, & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 213-234). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
79. 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, 557-568.
80. Teichert, M., & Stacy, A. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 464-496.
81. Treagust, D.F., & Harrison, A.G. (2000). In search of explanatory frameworks: An analysis of Richard Feynman's lecture 'Atoms in motion'. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1157-1170.
82. Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic and molecular structure in chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 922-925.
83. Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 97-129.
84. Weinhold, F., & Landis, C.R. (2005). Valency and bonding: A natural bond orbital donoracceptor perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85. Wightman, T., Green, P., & Scott, P. (1986). The construction of meaning and conceptual change in classroom settings: Case studies on the particulate nature of matter. Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
86. 2. Physical Review Letters, 89, 077401. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev-Lett.89.077401
87. Yayon, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Fortus, D. (2010). Characterizing and representing students' knowledge of chemical bonding. Manuscript submitted for publication.