Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

First Year Undergraduate Students' Difficulties with Ball-and-stick Molecular Models

  • Chue, Shien (Natural Sciences and Science Education Academic Group, National Institute of Education) ;
  • Kim, Chwee (Natural Sciences and Science Education Academic Group, National Institute of Education) ;
  • Tan, Daniel (Natural Sciences and Science Education Academic Group, National Institute of Education)
  • Published : 2007.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Previous studies show that students have difficulties in understanding and using molecular visualization tools. This study focuses on the ways in which first year chemistry undergraduates use ball-and-stick molecular models to explain the concept of addition reaction and the difficulties that they face using the models. Video recordings of interviews with undergraduates manipulating ball-and-stick models to solve problems related to reaction mechanisms are analysed to determine if they are able to elucidate their understanding with use of models. The results showed that students have difficulties with viewing the ball-and-stick models from the proper perspective and understanding the relationship between the various structures that they have created using the models. They also find the use of ball-and-stick models tedious and prefer drawing molecular structures on paper to explain their ideas. Implications for the teaching using ball-and-stick molecular models are discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64-66 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed063p64
  2. Bodner, G. M. & Domin, D. S. (2000). Mental models: the role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24-30
  3. Chang, H. Y., Scott, L. A., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Chemation: classroom impact of a handheld chemistry modeling and animation tool. Proceeding of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and children: building a community (p. 119 -120). Maryland, USA
  4. Chittleborough, G. & Treagust, D. F. (2007). The modelling ability of non major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8 (3), 274-292 https://doi.org/10.1039/b6rp90035f
  5. ColI R.K. & Treagust D.F., (2001), Learners' mental models of chemical bonding, Research in Science Education, 31 (3), 357-382 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013159927352
  6. Copolo, C.F. & Hounshell, P.B. (1995). Using three dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 295-305 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02211261
  7. Dori, Y.J. & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 1-14
  8. Ferk, V. & Vrtacnik, M. (2003). Students' understanding of molecular structure representations. International Journal of Science Education. 25(10), 1227-1245 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000038231
  9. Gilbert, J.K. & Boulter, C. (2001). Developing models in science education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher
  10. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Rutherford, M. (2000). Explanations with models in science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 193-208). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher
  11. Gilbert, J.K., Jong, O. D., Justi, R. & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Chemical education: Towards research based practice. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  12. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. Amercian Anthropologist, 96, 606-633 https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
  13. 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290609
  14. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E. & Smith, C.L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research In Science Teaching. 28(9). 799-822 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280907
  15. Hardwicke, A. J. (1995). Using molecular models to teach chemistry. School Science Review, 77(278), 47-56
  16. Habraken, C. (1996). Perceptions of chemistry: Why is the common perception of Chemistry, the most visual of sciences, so distorted? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(5), 193-201
  17. Han, J. & Roth, W.M. (2005). Chemical inscriptions in Korean textbooks: Semiotics of macro and microworld. Science Education, 90(2),173-201 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20091
  18. Harrison A.G., (2001). Textbooks for outcomes science: a review, The Queensland Science Teacher, 27, 20-22
  19. Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D.F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509-534 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199609)80:5<509::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-F
  20. Head, J., Bucat, R., Mocerino, M., & Treagust, D. (2004). Exploring students' abilities to use two different styles of structural representation in organic chemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national Association for research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada
  21. Ingham A.I. and Gilbert J.K., (1991), The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level, International Journal of Science Education, 13, 203-215 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130207
  22. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701 -704 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p701
  23. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry: logical or psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9-15 https://doi.org/10.1039/a9rp90001b
  24. Jones, M. B. (2001). Molecular modelling in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(7), 867-868 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p867
  25. Jones, L.L., Jordan, K.D., & Stillings, N.A. (2005). Molecular visualization in chemical education: The role of multidisciplinary collaboration. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 6(3), 136-149 https://doi.org/10.1039/b5rp90005k
  26. Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
  27. Khan, S. (2005). Constructing Visualizable Models in Chemistry. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Conference, Montreal, 11 th-15th, April
  28. Kozma, B. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. J. R. Kozma (Ed.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advance designs for technologies of learning (pp. 11-24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  29. Kozma, R. B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marz, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0902_1
  30. Kozma R. B. & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of research in science teaching, 34(9), 949-968 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9<949::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-U
  31. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge
  32. Marquez, C., Izquierdo, M. & Spinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers' discourse in modeling the water cycle. International Journal of Science Education, 90(2), 202-226
  33. McMurry, J. (1992). Organic chemistry: 3rd edition. Wadsworth: Cole Publishing Company
  34. Meislick, H., Nechamkin, H., & Sharfkin, J. (2000). Organic chemistry. New York: Hill McGraw
  35. Noh, T & Scharmann, L. C. (1997) Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students' conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 199-217 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199702)34:2<199::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-O
  36. Nyle, M. J. (1993). From chemical philosophy to theoretical chemistry. Berkeley: University of California Press
  37. Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). 'When I come down I'm in the domain state': grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & SA Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 328-369). New York: Cambridge University press
  38. Peterson, Q.R. (1970). Some reflections on the use and abuse of molecular models. Journal of Chemical Education, 47(1), 24-29 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed047p24
  39. Tasker, D. & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: Visualization of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 141-159 https://doi.org/10.1039/b5rp90020d
  40. Treagust, D. F. & Harrison, A. G. (1999). The genesis of effective scientific explanations for the classroom. In lLoughran (ed.), researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 28-43). London: Palmer Press
  41. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & and Mamiala, T. L. (2004). Students' understanding of the descriptive and predictive nature of teaching models in organic chemistry. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 1-20 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000020885.41497.ed
  42. Wu, H. K. (2003). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: Intertextuality in a high-school science classroom. Science Education, 87(6), 868-891 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10090
  43. Wu, H. K., Krajcik, l S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1033
  44. Wu, H. K. & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465-492 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10126
  45. Zare, R. N. (2002). Visualizing Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(11), 1290-1291 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p1290
  46. Zieba, M.L. (2004). Teaching and learning about reaction mechanisms in organic chemistry. Unpublished thesis, University of Western Australia
  47. Zieba, M.L., Bucat, B., Mocerino, M.,& Treagust, D. (2002). Teaching, learning and reaction mechanism. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Townsville, Queensland