Insights into Components of Prospective Science Teachers’ Mental Models and Their Preferred Visual Representations of Atoms

Abstract

This study focused on determining the elements of mental models of atomic structure and views on visual representations of models of atomic structure in two sub-cohorts of student teachers studying at a university in Turkey. In total, 141 student teachers participated in this study. In the first cohort, the focus was on 73 freshman science student teachers’ drawings of mental models of atomic structure. The analysis showed a wide variety of individual aspects in the students’ minds when asked to sketch the structure of atoms. The majority of students preferred to draw two-dimensional structures, neglecting the atom’s space-filling character. Concerning the details of atomic structure, the majority of students emphasized only the most essential components of atoms, namely protons, neutrons, and electrons. It was quickly recognizable that these elements were arranged according to different analogies or representations of historical models, particularly related to Bohr’s atomic theory and different representations thereof. Overall, the different visual representations of atomic models the students see in school, almost exclusively serve as the basis for their ideas about atomic structure. Current atomic theory, like quantum mechanical models, are generally not used when students are asked for a “contemporary” model of atoms. Rather it seems that concreteness and functionality are the primary factors leading to the selection of an atomic model when requested. This study is supplemented by data collected from the second cohort of 68 prospective teachers consisting of a diverse group of students ranging from freshman to senior level. The students in this cohort were asked for their preferred illustrations of atoms in textbooks. Open-ended questions about atoms led to further insights. The analysis of the prospective teachers’ drawings indicated that a more careful approach to teaching is necessary to clarify the relationships between different models of atomic structure and to allow students to understand what an appropriate and contemporary understanding of atomic structure should encompass.

Studying the coherence of studentsʼ portrayed representations of the atomic structure - Connections with conceptions and misconceptions

“…tudents' ideas for the atom and its structure have been widely studied in science education highlighting a number of various misconceptions that emphasize their insufficiency of the scientific knowledge (e.g., Cokelez and Dumon, 2005;Cokelez, 2012;Papageorgiou et al, 2016a;2016b;Zarkadis et al, 2017;Allred and Bretz, 2019;Derman et al, 2019). Researchers have approached students' relevant knowledge covering a wide range of ages and grades from different perspectives, showing the multifaceted nature of this concept.…”

“…Some have focused on specific ontological characteristics of the atom related to its identity and behavior, that is, distinction between atom identity and those of other submicroscopic particles or entities in general, its behavior during changes of states, atom animistic behaviors, etc. (e.g., Griffiths and Preston, 1992;Adbo and Taber, 2009;Cokelez, 2012;Papageorgiou et al, 2016b;Derman et al, 2019). Others have focused on atom portrayed representations, when identifying specific students' mental models (e.g., Papaphotis and Tsaparlis, 2008;Park and Light, 2009;Cokelez, 2012, Wang andBarrow, 2013;Papageorgiou et al, 2016a;Allred and Bretz, 2019;Derman et al, 2019).…”

“…(e.g., Griffiths and Preston, 1992;Adbo and Taber, 2009;Cokelez, 2012;Papageorgiou et al, 2016b;Derman et al, 2019). Others have focused on atom portrayed representations, when identifying specific students' mental models (e.g., Papaphotis and Tsaparlis, 2008;Park and Light, 2009;Cokelez, 2012, Wang andBarrow, 2013;Papageorgiou et al, 2016a;Allred and Bretz, 2019;Derman et al, 2019). Regarding the former (concerning atom ontological characteristics), research evidence indicated that students often attribute macroscopic characteristics to atoms (e.g., Kikas, 2004;Adbo and Taber, 2009;2014;Talanquer, 2009;Taber and García-Franco, 2010;Papageorgiou et al, 2016b;Derman et al, 2019).…”

“…Others have focused on atom portrayed representations, when identifying specific students' mental models (e.g., Papaphotis and Tsaparlis, 2008;Park and Light, 2009;Cokelez, 2012, Wang andBarrow, 2013;Papageorgiou et al, 2016a;Allred and Bretz, 2019;Derman et al, 2019). Regarding the former (concerning atom ontological characteristics), research evidence indicated that students often attribute macroscopic characteristics to atoms (e.g., Kikas, 2004;Adbo and Taber, 2009;2014;Talanquer, 2009;Taber and García-Franco, 2010;Papageorgiou et al, 2016b;Derman et al, 2019). They show inability to distinguish between atom and other submicroscopic particles, that is, molecules or ions or they attribute animistic and anthropomorphic characteristics to atoms (e.g., Papageorgiou et al, 2016b).…”

“…They show inability to distinguish between atom and other submicroscopic particles, that is, molecules or ions or they attribute animistic and anthropomorphic characteristics to atoms (e.g., Papageorgiou et al, 2016b). Regardingthe latter (students' portrayed representations of the atomic structure), a number of categories have been identified, which associated with particular mental models varying from the simplest and concrete to the most abstract and sophisticated (Cokelez and Dumon, 2005;Cokelez, 2012;Papageorgiou et al, 2016a;Zarkadis et al, 2017;Allred and Bretz, 2019;Derman et al, 2019). It has also been found that these portrayed representations are context dependent (e.g., Tsaparlis and Papaphotis, 2009;Wang and Barrow, 2013;Papageorgiou et al, 2016a;Zarkadis et al, 2017;Allred and Bretz, 2019).…”