logo logo European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education

EJMSE is is a, peer reviewed, online academic research journal.

Subscribe to

Receive Email Alerts

for special events, calls for papers, and professional development opportunities.

Subscribe

Publisher (HQ)

Eurasian Society of Educational Research
7321 Parkway Drive South, Hanover, MD 21076, USA
Headquarters
7321 Parkway Drive South, Hanover, MD 21076, USA
teachers conceptions atomic model in service science teachers

Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Atomic Models

Jeff Wiener

This article presents an international study that documented the conceptions of atomic models held by 1062 in-service high school science teachers fro.

T

This article presents an international study that documented the conceptions of atomic models held by 1062 in-service high school science teachers from 58 countries. First, a previous study on pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of atomic models was successfully replicated as a pilot study with an international sample of in-service science teachers. Teachers’ conceptions were investigated by analysing their drawings of atomic models. Based on these results, a multiple-choice questionnaire was developed for the main study. This questionnaire collected data on teachers’ conceptions of atomic models, teachers’ knowledge about their students’ conceptions of atomic models, and teachers’ use of atomic models in the classroom. The results show that the teachers’ conceptions of atomic models are almost evenly distributed over six different atomic models. These models are the Bohr model, the Rutherford model, the probability model, the orbital model, the probability orbit model, and the wave model. The vast majority of teachers assume that their students’ conceptions are centred on two historical atomic models, namely the Bohr model and the Rutherford model. Furthermore, the majority of teachers prefer to use historical atomic models over modern atomic models in the classroom. However, the findings also highlight that the use of modern atomic models in the classroom is positively correlated with growing teaching experience, and that teachers’ conceptions of atomic models and their knowledge of students’ conceptions of atomic models significantly influence teachers’ classroom practice.

Keywords: Teachers’ conceptions, atomic model, in-service science teachers.

cloud_download PDF
Cite
Article Metrics
Views
1775
Download
924
Citations
Crossref
0

References

Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105-1149). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Adbo, K., & Taber, K. S. (2009). Learners’ mental models of the particle nature of matter: A study of 16-year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 757-786.

Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3-16.

Barnes, N., Fives, H., & Dacey, C. M. (2017). U.S. teachers' conceptions of the purposes of assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.017

Barraza, L. (1999). Children’s drawings about the environment. Environmental Education Research, 5(1), 49-66.

Bergqvist, A., Drechsler, M., & Chang Rundgren, S.-N. (2016). Upper secondary teachers' knowledge for teaching chemical bonding models. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 298-318.

Bindernagel, J. A., & Eilks, I. (2009). Evaluating roadmaps to portray and develop chemistry teachers' PCK about curricular structures concerning sub‐microscopic models. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(2), 77–85.

Budde, M., Niedderer, H., Scott, P., & Leach, J. (2002). 'Electronium': A quantum atomic teaching model. Physics Education, 37(3), 197-203.

Caleon, I. S., Tan, Y. S. M., & Cho, Y. H. (2018). Does teaching experience matter? The beliefs and practices of beginning and experienced physics teachers. Research in Science Education, 48(1), 117-149.

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255-265.

Chhin, C. S., Taylor, K. A., & Wei, W. S. (2018). Supporting a culture of replication: An examination of education and special education research grants funded by the Institute of Education Sciences. Educational Researcher, 47(9), 594-605.

Dikmenli, M. (2010). Misconceptions of cell division held by student teachers in biology: A drawing analysis. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(2), 235-247.

Dove, J. E., Everett, L. A., & Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Exploring a hydrological concept through children’s drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 485-497.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688.

Eilks, I. (2015). On the transformation of research on teaching and learning about the sub-micro world in chemistry education into feasable classroom practice. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 269-284.

Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (2010). The Feynman lectures on physics. The new millennium edition. Volume I: mainly mechanics, radiation, and heat. Basic Books.

Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 335-345.

Fischler, H., & Lichtfeldt, M. (1992). Modern physics and students’ conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 181-190.

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urban (Eds.), APA Educational psychology handbook: Vol. 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471-499). APA.

Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115-130.

Gómez, E. J., Benarroch, A., & Marín, N. (2006). Evaluation of the degree of coherence found in students' conceptions concerning the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), 577-598.

Good, R. (1992). The importance of replication studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 209.

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.

Gunnarsson, R., Hellquist, B., Strömdahl, H., & Zelic, D. (2018). Secondary school science teachers' arguments for the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(4), 503-525.

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.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189-212). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 273–292.

Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440-454.

Jong, O. D., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 947-964.

Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (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.

Kalkanis, G., Hadzidaki, P., & Stavrou, D. (2003). An instructional model for a radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics concepts. Science Education, 87(2), 257-280.

Kiray, S. A. (2016). The pre-service science teachers’ mental models for concept of atoms and learning difficulties. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(2), 147-162.

Kornbrot, D. (2014). Point biserial correlation. In N. Balakrishnan, T. Colton, B. Everitt, W. Piegorsch, F. Ruggeri, & J. L. Teugels (Eds.), Wiley StatsRef: Statistics reference online. Wiley.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G., (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometric, 33(1), 159-174.

Lee, J. -E., & Zeppelin, M. (2014). Using drawings to bridge the transition from student to future teacher of mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2), 333-346.

Lipowsky, F., & Rzejak, D. (2015). Key features of effective professional development programmes for teachers. Ricercazione, 7(2), 27–51.

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.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Kluwer.

Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 304-316.

Margel, H., Eylon, B.-S., & Scherz, Z. (2008). A longitudinal study of junior high school students' conceptions of the structure of materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 132-152.

Markic, S., Valanides, N., & Eilks, I (2006). Freshman science student teachers’ beliefs on science teaching and learning - A mixed methods study. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Towards research-based science teacher education (pp. 29-40). Shaker.

McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 4(1), 010103.

Müller, R., & Wiesner, H. (2002). Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level. American Journal of Physics, 70(3), 200-209.

Neumann, S., & Hopf, M. (2013). Children’s drawings about “radiation” - before and after Fukushima. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1535-1549.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Park, E. J., & Light, G. (2009). Identifying atomic structure as a threshold concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233-258.

Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284.

Petri, J., & Niedderer, H. (1998). A learning pathway in high-school level quantum atomic physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1075-1088.

Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2014). Designing and conducting survey research. A comprehensive guide. Jossey-Bass.

Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Children’s choice of drawings to communicate their ideas about technology. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 239-252.

Rodríguez, M. A., & Niaz, M. (2004). A reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for general physics textbooks: A history and philosophy of science perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 409-424.

Samarapungavan, A., Bryan, L., & Wills, J. (2017). Second graders’ emerging particle models of matter in the context of learning through model-based inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 988-1023.

Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 530–565.

Snir, J., Smith, C. L., & Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter. Science Education, 87, 794-830.

Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Thomson, J. J. (1897). Cathode rays. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 44, 293-316.

Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Crowley, J., Yung, B. H. W., Cheong, I. P. A., & Othman, J. (2010). Evaluating students’ understanding of kinetic particle theory concepts relating to the states of matter, changes of state and diffusion: A cross-national study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 141-164.

Vikström, A. (2014). What makes the difference? Teachers explore what must be taught and what must be learned in order to understand the particulate character of matter. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 709-727.

Wiener, G. J., Schmeling, S. M., & Hopf, M. (2018). The technique of probing acceptance as a tool for teachers' professional development: A PCK study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(6), 849-875.

Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205-239). Routledge.

...