Examining Pre-Service Teachers' Use of Atomic Models in Explaining Subsequent Ionisation Energy Values

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 403-422

  Wheeldon, Ruth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Atomic models; Ionisation energy; Pre service teachers

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860684836     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-011-9333-0     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Adbo K, Taber K (2009) Learners' mental models of the particulate nature of matter: a study of 16 year old Swedish science students. Int J Sci Educ 31(6): 757-786.
2. Budde M, Niedderer H, Scott S, Leach J (2002) 'Electronium': a quantum atomic teaching model. Phys Educ 37(3): 197-203.
3. Cann P (2000) Ionisation energies, parallel spins and the stability of half filled shells. J Chem Educ 77: 1056-1061.
4. Cheng M, Gilbert JK (2009) Towards a better utilization of diagrams in research. In: Gilbert JK, Treagust D (eds) Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer, New York, pp 55-73.
5. Coll R, Taylor N (2002) Mental models in chemistry: senior chemistry students' mental models of chemical bonding. Chem Educ Res Pract 3: 175-184.
6. Coll R, France B, Taylor I (2005) The role of models/and analogies in science education: implications from research. Int J Sci Educ 27(2): 183-198.
7. de Jong O, van Driel JH, Verloop N (2005) 'Preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. J Res Sci Teach 42(8): 947-964.
8. Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci Educ 84: 287-312.
9. Gilbert JK (2005) Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In: Gilbert JK (ed) Visualization in science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 9-27.
10. Gilbert JK, Boulter C, Elmer R (2000) Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In: Gilbert JK, Boulter CJ (eds) Developing models in science education. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 3-17.
11. Gilbert JK, Boulter C, Rutherford M (1998) Models in explanations, Part 2: Whose voice? Whose ears? Int J Sci Educ 20(2): 187-203.
12. Grosslight L, Unger C, Jay E, Smith C (1991) Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. J Res Sci Teach 28: 799-822.
13. Halloun I (2007) Mediated modeling in science education. Sci Educ 16: 653-697.
14. Johnson-Laird P (1983) Mental models. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
15. Justi R, Gilbert J (2000) History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of 'the atom'. Int J Sci Educ 22(9): 993-1009.
16. Kalkanis G, Hadzidaki P, Stavrou D (2003) An instructional model for a radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics concepts. Sci Educ 87(2): 257-280.
17. Kvale S (2006) Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qual Inq 12(3): 480-500.
18. LeCompte M, Preissle J (1993) Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research, 2nd edn. Academic Press, London.
19. Limerick B, Burgess-Limerick T, Grace M (1996) The politics of interviewing: power relations and accepting the gift. Qual Stud Educ 9(4): 449-460.
20. McKagan S, Perkins K, Wiemam C (2008) Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively. Phys Rev Special Top Phys Educ Res 4: 1-10.
21. Papaphotis G, Tsaparlis G (2008a) Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: the case of basic quantum chemical concepts, Part 1. Statistical analysis of a quantitative study. Chem Educ Res Pract 9: 323-331.
22. Papaphotis G, Tsaparlis G (2008b) Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: the case of basic quantum chemical concepts, Part 2. Students' common errors, misconceptions and difficulties in understanding. Chem Educ Res Pract 9: 332-340.
23. Park EJ, Light G (2009) Identifying atomic structure as a threshold concept: student mental models and troublesomeness. Int J Sci Educ 31(2): 233-258.
24. Pintrich PR, Marx RW, Boyle RA (1993) Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Rev Educ Res 63: 167-199.
25. Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA (1982) Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci Educ 66: 211-227.
26. Sevian H, Gonzales L (2008) Analysing how scientists explain their research: a rubric for measuring the effectiveness of scientific explanations. Int J Sci Educ 30(11): 1441-1467.
27. Taber K (2002) Chemical misconceptions-prevention, diagnosis and cure, volume 1: theoretical background. RSC, London.
28. Taber K (2005) Learning quanta: barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Sci Educ 89(1): 94-116.
29. Taber K (2009) College students' conceptions of chemical stability: the widespread adoption of a heuristic rule out of context and beyond its range of application. Int J Sci Educ 31(10): 1333-1358.
30. Taber KS, Tan KCD (2007) 'Exploring learners' conceptual resources: Singapore A level students' explanations in the topic of ionisation energy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(3): 375-392.
31. Taber KS, Watts M (1996) The secret life of the chemical bond: students' anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. Int J Sci Educ 18(5): 557-568.
32. Tan KCD, Taber KS (2009) Ionisation energy: implications of preservive teachers' conceptions. J Chem Educ 86(5): 623-629.
33. Tan KCD, Taber KS, Goh NK, Chia LS (2005) 'The ionisation energy diagnostic instrument: a two-tier multiple-choice instrument to determine high school students' understanding of ionisation energy. Chem Educ Res Pract 6(4): 180-197. Available from http://www. rsc. org/images/Tanpaper_tcm18-41069. pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2009.
34. Tan KCD, Taber KS, Liu X, Coll RK, Lorenzo M, Li J, Goh NK, Chia LS (2008) 'Students' conceptions of ionisation energy: a cross-cultural study. Int J Sci Educ 30(2): 263-283.
35. Treagust DF, Duit R (2008) Conceptual change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 3: 297-328.
36. Tsaparlis G, Papaphotis G (2009) 'High-school students' conceptual difficulties and attempts at conceptual change: the case of basic quantum chemical concepts. Int J Sci Educ 31(7): 895-930.
37. Valanides N, Angeli C (2006) Preparing preservice elementary teachers to teach science through computer models. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 6(1): 87-98.
38. A-Scott A (2002) Online Available at: http://images. google. co. uk/imgres?imgurl=http://physics. uwstout. edu/geo/bedtime/graphics/atom. jpg& imgrefurl=http://physics. uwstout. edu/geo/bedtime/daddy%27s%2520stories. htm& h=650& w=723& sz=40& hl=en& start=2& tbnid=mnVIyfIA21j65M:& tbnh=126& tbnw=140& prev=/images%3Fq%3Datom%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG. 29 March 2008.
39. B-University of Alberta. Online Available at: http://www. fsj. ualberta. ca/chimie/learning_tools/s5. gif. 29 March 2008.
40. C-How Stuff Works (2001) Online Available at: http://lapse. nerdvana. org. au/comedy/pics/atom-bohr. gif. 29 March 2008.
41. D-Jones L (1996) CHEMCONF '96. Online Available at: http://www. wam. umd. edu/~toh/ChemConference/ChemConf96/Jones/jones1. jpg. 29 March, 2008.