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

Abstract

Chemistry students' explanations of ionisation energy phenomena often involve a number of non-scientific or inappropriate ideas being used to form causality arguments. Research has attributed this to many science teachers using these ideas themselves (Tan and Taber, in J Chem Educ 86(5): [623][624][625][626][627][628][629] 2009). This research extends this work by considering which atomic models are used in pre-service teachers' explanations and how that relates to the causality ideas expressed. Thirty-one pre-service teachers were interviewed. Each was asked to describe and explain four different atomic representations (Rutherford, Electron cloud micrograph, Bohr and Schrödinger types) in as much detail as they could. They also provided an explanation for the subsequent ionisation energy values for an oxygen atom and identified which representations were helpful in explaining the values. Significantly, when preservice teachers only used Bohr type representations, they did not use repelling electron ideas in their explanations. However, arguments that were based on electron-electron repulsion used features from Schrödinger type atoms. These findings suggest that many pre-service teachers need to develop their atomic modelling skills so that they select and use models more expertly and that subsequent ionisation explanations offer a context in which to explore different atomic models' limitations and their deployment as explanatory resources.

Learning quantum chemistry via a visual-conceptual approach: students' bidirectional textual and visual understanding

“…light, 2009), the Rutherford (planetary) type model, (Wheeldon, 2012), or a planetary or solar system model (Harrison and Treagust, 1996;Taber 2001a;Stevens et al, 2010), was categorized as a ''naı ¨ve illustration''. Additional categories, specific to the visual mode, were the number of illustrations and the complexity (richness) of each illustration.…”

Helping Pre-Service Science Teachers to Understand Atomism Through Observations and Experiments

“…Thus, important observations and experiments revolving around the concept of the atom over the course of history formed the basic framework of the teaching modules. In the literature, the concept of the atom is most prominently treated through the Modern Theories of the Atom of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr, respectively (Harrison and Treagust, 2000;Niaz, 1998;Niaz, Aguilera, Maza and Liendo, 2002;Peleg andBaram-ISSN 1648-3898 Tsabari, 2011;Petri and Niedderer, 1998;Rodriguez and Niaz, 2004;Tsaparlis, 1997;Wheeldon, 2011;Viana and Porto, 2009). By emphasizing the historical process in teaching about the atom, the importance of learning about the atom has been stressed (Ben-Zvi, Eylon and Silberstein, 1986;Blanco and Niaz, 1998;Niaz, Aguilera, Maza and Liendo, 2002;Nussbaum, 2005).…”

“…It can be seen that teaching about the concept of the atom has mostly involved using models and modeling to treat the theories of the atom that appeared after Dalton. For example, modeling has frequently been used with regard to Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr and the Quantum mechanics model (Adbo and Taber, 2009;Justi and Gilbert, 2000;Mozzer and Justi, 2012;Niaz, Aguilera, Maza, and Liendo, 2002;Wheeldon, 2011). Although modeling-based teaching appears to be an effective method, it has its limitations.…”

Fostering prospective teachers’ explaining skills during university education—Evaluation of a training module

“…Furthermore, pre-service teachers struggle when it comes to evaluating and activating prior knowledge (Sánchez et al 1999), tailoring explanations to students' needs (Halim 1998), or reacting flexibly to unexpected events or to students' questions (Borko and Livingston 1989;Leinhardt 1989). Also, they experience difficulties when designing suitable representations (Borko et al 1992;Inoue 2009;Kinach 2002a;Wheeldon 2012) or examples (Borko et al 1992;Inoue 2009;Wheeldon 2012). Deficits in prospective teachers' explaining skills are often attributed to a lack of content knowledge (Borko et al 1992;Eisenhart et al 1993;Halim and Meerah 2002;Thanheiser 2009).…”