Student’s Misconceptions on Chemical Bonding: A Comparative Study between High School and First Year University Students

José R Ballester Pérez, María E Ballester Pérez, María L Calatayud, Rosa M Garcia-Lopera, José V Sabater Montesinos, Elvira Trilles Gil

Abstract


The aim of this paper is to investigate the students' understanding about some aspects of the chemical bond and to determine their related misconceptions. Concretely, topics such as the interpretation of some properties of substances (colour, boiling points, solubility and conductivity), intra and intermolecular forces, hydrogen bonding, covalent and molecular networks, geometry and polarity of molecules, are investigated. The research methodology used has been a questionnaire consisting on 15 multiple choice questions as a diagnostic tool. The questionnaire was applied to 79 high school students (17-18 years old) from six different secondary schools in Valencia (Spain) and 99 first-year undergraduate students of Chemistry and Pharmacy degrees at the University of Valencia (19-20 years old). In the light of the obtained results, the main misconceptions observed are: to attribute macroscopic properties to particles; incorrect prediction of boiling points; to perceive ionic compounds as being formed by molecules; misunderstanding the nature of the hydrogen bond and assuming that it is established in any molecule containing hydrogen together with nitrogen, oxygen or fluorine, regardless if the hydrogen atom is directly bonded to these atoms or not; confusing the geometry of a molecule with its distribution of electron pairs around the central atom; and, finally, a wrong prediction of the polarity of molecules. Suggestions that could be accommodated in normal classrooms, are made in order to improve learning.

Keywords


misconceptions, chemical bonding, secondary school, undergraduate level

Full Text:

PDF

References


Barker, V. and Millar, R. (2000). “Students´ reasoning about basic chemical thermodynamics and chemical bonding: what changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course”, International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), pp. 1171-1200.

Birk, J.P. and Kurtz, M.J. (1999). “Effect of experience on retention and elimination of misconceptions about molecular structure and bonding”, Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), pp. 124-128.

Boo, H.K. (1998). “Students´ understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), pp. 569-581.

Butts, B. and Smith, R. (1987). “HSC chemistry students´ understanding of the structure and properties of molecular and ionic compounds”. Research in Science Education, 17, pp. 192-201.

Coll, R.K. and 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), pp. 464-486.

Cooper, M.M., Corley, M.L. and Underwood, S.M. (2013). “An investigation of college chemistry students´ understanding of structure-property relationships”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), pp. 699-721.

Furió, C. and Calatayud, M.L. (1996). “Difficulties with geometry and polarity of molecules: beyond misconceptions”, Journal of Chemical Education, 73(1), 36-41.

Furió-Más, C., Calatayud, M.L. and Bárcenas, S.L. (2007). “Surveying students´ conceptual and procedural knowledge of acid-base behavior of substances”, Journal of Chemical Education, 84(10), pp. 1717-1724.

Furió, C. and Dominguez, M.C. (2007). “Deficiencias en la enseñanza habitual de los conceptos macroscópicos de sustancia y de cambio químico”. Revista de Educación en Ciencias, 8(2), pp. 84-91.

Johnson, P. (2000). “Children's understanding of substances, part 1: recognizing chemical change”, International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), pp. 719-737.

Johnson, P. (2002). “Children's understanding of substances, part 2: explaining chemical change”, International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), pp. 1037-1054.

Johnstone, A.H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377-379.

Johnstone, A.H. (1993). “The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand”, Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), pp. 701-705.

Johnstone, A.H. (2000). “Teaching of chemistry- logical or psychological?”, Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 1(1), pp. 9-15.

Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: students´misconceptions about basic chemical ideas, (2nd edition), School of Education, Durhan University.

Luxford, C.J. and Bretz, S.L. (2013). “Moving beyond definitions: what student-generated models reveal about their understanding of covalent bonding and ionic bonding”, Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 14(2), pp. 214-222.

Nahum, T.L., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A. and Krajcik, J. (2007). “Developing a new teaching approach for the chemical bonding concept aligned with current scientific and pedagogical knowledge”, Science Education, 91(4), pp. 579-603.

Nahum, T.L., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A. and Taber, K.S. (2010). “Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding”, Studies in Science Education, 46(2), pp. 179-207.

Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). “Why some students don´t learn chemistry: chemical misconceptions”, Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), pp. 191-196.

Nakhleh, M.B. (1994). “Students´ models of matter in the context of acid-base chemistry”, Journal of Chemical Education, 71(6), pp. 495-499.

Nicoll, G. (2001). “A report of undergraduates´ bonding misconceptions”, International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), pp. 707-730.

Nicoll, G. (2003). “A qualitative investigation of undergraduate chemistry students' macroscopic interpretations of the submicroscopic structures of molecules”, Journal of Chemical Education, 80(2), pp. 205-213.

Nyachwaya, J.M. Mohamed, A.R., Roehrig, G.H., Wood, N.B., Kern, A.L. and Schneider, J.L. (2011). “The development of an open-ended drawing tool: an alternative diagnostic tool for assessing students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter”, Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 12(2), pp. 121-132.

Othman, J., Treagust, D.F. and Chandrasegaran, A.L. (2008). “An investigation into the relationship between students' conceptions of the particulate nature of matter and their understanding of chemical bonding”, International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), pp. 1531-1550.

Özmen, H. (2004). “Some student misconceptions in Chemistry: a literature review of chemical bonding”, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), pp. 147-159.

Peterson, R.F. and Treagust, D.F. (1989). “Grade-12 students' misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure”, Journal of Chemical Education, 66(6), pp. 459-460.

Peterson, R.F., Treagust, D.F. and 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(4), pp. 301-314.

Schmidt, H.J., Kaufmann, B. and Treagust, D. F. (2009). “Students' understanding of boiling points and intermolecular forces”, Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 10(4), pp. 265-272.

Smith, K.C. and Nakhleh, M.B. (2011). “University students' conceptions of bonding in melting and dissolving phenomena”, Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 12(4), pp. 398-408.

Taber, K. S. (1994). “Misunderstanding the ionic bond”, Education in Chemistry-London, 31(4), pp. 100−103.

Taber, K. S. (1997). “Student understanding of ionic bonding: molecular versus electrostatic framework?”, School Science Review, 78(285), pp. 85–95.

Taber, K.S. (2002). “Chemical misconceptions: prevention, diagnosis and cure. Volume 1: Theoretical background”. London: Royal Society of Chemistry, chapter 8, pp.125-139.

Taber, K.S. (2003). “Mediating mental models of metals: acknowledging the priority of the learner's prior learning”, Science Education, 87(5), pp. 732-758.

Taber, K. S., Tsaparlis, G. and Nakiboglu, C. (2012). “Student conceptions of ionic bonding: patterns of thinking across three European contexts”, International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), pp. 2843–2873.

Tan, K.C.D. and Treagust, D.F. (1999). “Evaluating students´ understanding of chemical bonding”, School Science Review, 81(294), pp. 75-83.

Tarhan, L., Ayar-Kayali, H., Urek, R.O. and Acar, B. (2008). “Problem–based learning in 9th grade chemistry class: Intermolecular Forces”, Research in Science Education, 38(3), pp. 285-300.

Treagust, D. F. and Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2009). “The efficacy of an alternative instructional programme designed to enhance secondary students’ competence in the triplet relationship”. In J.K. Gilbert & D.F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer Netherlands. (pp. 151-168).

Treagust, D.F., Chittleborough, G. and Mamiala, T. (2003). “The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations”, International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), pp. 1353-1368.

Ünal, S., Costu, B. and Ayas, A. (2010). “Secondary school students´ Misconceptions of covalent bonding”, Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(2), pp. 4-29.

Uyulgan, M.A., Akkuzu, N. and Alpat, S. (2014). “Assessing the students' understanding related to molecular geometry using a two-tier diagnostic test”, Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), pp. 839-855.

Vladusic, R., Bucat, R.B. and Ozic, M. (2016). “Understanding ionic bonding- a scan across the Croatian education system”, Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 17(4), pp. 685-699.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.