Blog - Science-Education-Research

A sodium atom wants to donate its electron to another atom

Keith S. Taber

Lovesh was a participant in the Understanding Chemical Bonding Project, studying 'A level' chemistry in a further education college. He was interviewed in his second year of the two year A level course, and was presented with focal figure 1 (below). He recognised figure 1 as showing a "sodium, atom", and was asked about its stability:

Is that a stable species, do you think?
Erm (pause, c.3s) No, because it hasn't got a, a full outer – electron shell, outer electron shell hasn't got eight electrons in.

Lovesh shared the common notion that an atom without a full outer shell / octet of electrons would be unstable compared with the corresponding ion with a full outer shell / octet of electrons. When comparing isolated atoms with the corresponding ions this is seldom the case, yet this is a common alternative conception about chemical stability. A sodium ion can be considered stable in an ionic lattice, or when hydrated in solution, but does not spontaneously ionise as the outer shell electron is attracted to the atom's positive core. Ionisation only occurs when sufficient work is done to overcome this attraction.

Lovesh was demonstrating the common full shells explanatory principle alternative conception which is central to the common octet rule framework – an alternative conceptual framework reflecting very common 'misconceptions' found among learners studying chemistry.

Lovesh was asked what would happen to the atom that he considered unstable:

So if it's not stable, what would tend to happen to that, do you think?
It will wanna donate the electron to another atom.
Right, when you say 'it wants to donate' it?
Erm. (pause, c.3s) Well because that outer electron is less attracted to the nucleus, erm it is, it can easily be transferred, attracted by another atom.

Lovesh's first response here used the term 'wanna' (want to) which if take literally suggests the atom has desires and preferences. This is an example of anthropomorphism, imbuing objects with human-like traits. Using anthropomorphic explanations is a common feature of the octet rule framework which often leads to students talking as if atoms deliberately act to get full outer electron shells.

It has been suggested that such anthropomorphism may be either 'strong'- where the learner is offering an explanation they find convincing – or 'weak' if they are using language metaphorically, just as a figure of speech.

In this case, when Lovesh's use of the notion of 'wants' was queried he was able to shift to a different language register in terms of the action of physics forces – the electron being attracted elsewhere. Lovesh had clearly acquired an appropriate way of thinking about the interactions between atoms, but his spontaneous explanation was couched in anthropomorphic terms. Although in this case the anthropomorphism was of a weak form, the habitual use of this kind of language may come to stand in place of offering a scientifically acceptable account.

Share on Facebook

A double bond is different to a covalent bond

Keith S. Taber

Annie was a participant in the Understanding Chemical Bonding project. She was interviewed near the start of her college 'A level' course (equivalent to Y12 of the English school system). Annie was shown, and asked about, a sequence of images representing atoms, molecules and other sub-microscopic structures of the kinds commonly used in chemistry teaching. She was shown a representation of the resonance between two canonical forms of the ethanoate ion, sometimes used to imply the delocalisation of the ionic charge across the COO- grouping.

Any idea what this is?
They're organic compounds. And one's an inversion of the other.
Any idea what that arrow means in the centre of the page?
Does it mean that if you turned either of the, the O-minus, or the O that's double bonded around then you'd get the other compound? And it's exactly the same for that one if you turn that around, and you'd get, so it's like a reversible (pause, c4.s) thing.
Now what did you say about double bonded, what's this about being double bonded?
The oxygen is joined on the carbon with double bonds.
So what's a double bond? Is that, is that, you talked about covalent bonds earlier. Is a double bond the same as a covalent bond, or different to a covalent bond or?
Different.
So are there any covalent bonds, – the top one for example – are there any covalent bonds there?
Yeah.
How many covalent bonds are there?
Five.
And how many double bonds?
One.
And are there any ionic, ionic bonds?
No.
So we've got five covalent and one double.
Yeah.

Annie recognised the presence of a double bond (C=O) in the canonical forms shown, but seemed to see 'double bond' as an additional category of chemical bonding, different to covalent bonding, rather than referring to a particular type of covalent bond. So for Annie, each canonical form contained five covalent bonds (3H-C, C-C, C-O) and one double bond (C=O).

As the interview proceeded, Annie also suggested that single bonds are different to covalent bonds or ionic bonds.

Share on Facebook

Electrical resistance depends upon density

Keith S. Taber

Amy was a participant in the Understanding Science project.

Amy (Y10) suggested that a circuit was "a thing containing wires and components which electricity can pass through…it has to contain a battery as well". She thought that electricity could pass through "most things".

For Amy "resistance is anything which kind of provides a barrier that, which the current has to pass through, slowing down the current in a circuit", and she thought about this in terms of the analogy with water in pipes: "we've been taught the water tank and pipe running round it… just imagine the water like flowing through a pipe, and obviously like, if the pipe becomes smaller at one point, erm, the water flow has to slow down, and that's meant to represent the resistance of something".

So for Amy, charge flow was impeded by physical barriers effectively blocking its way. She made the logical association with the density of a material, on the basis that a material with densely packed particles would have limited space for the charge to flow:

So electricity would "not very easily" pass through a wooden bench "because wood is quite a dense material and the particles in it are quite closely bonded".

In air, however, the particles were "not as dense as a solid". When asked if that meant that electricity can pass through air quite easily, Amy replied: "yeah, I think so".

Amy's connection between the density of particles and the ease with which charge could flow is a logical one, but unfortunately involves a misunderstanding of how charge flows through materials, i.e., from a canonical scientific perspective, thinking about the charge flowing through gaps between particles is unhelpful here. (So this can be considered an alternative conception.) This seems to be a creative associative learning impediment, where prior learning (here, the spacing of quanticles in different materials) is applied, but in a context beyond its range of application.

Share on Facebook

A dusty analogy – a visual demonstration of ionisation in a mass spectrometer

Keith S. Taber

Amy was a participant in the Understanding Science project. She was interviewed when she had just started her 'A level' (i.e., college) chemistry, and one of the topics that the course had started with was mass spectrometry. She gave me a very detailed account of what she had been taught, despite both casting doubt on the logic of parts of the account, and of the accuracy of her own recollection (see Amy's account of mass spectrometry *). One of the unconvincing aspects of the new topic seemed to be the way positive ions were produced by bombarding atoms with (negative) electrons – although she had clearly picked up the point.

She reported that her teacher had demonstrated this point with an analogy. She told me that the teacher was using a lot of analogies, and she seemed to find them a little silly, implying that this analogy was not helpful. This particular example involved a board duster and two matchboxes. One matchbox sat on the duster, and was knocked off by the other matchbox being projected at it.

I thought this was quite interesting, as Amy did think the formation of positive ions was counter-intuitive, but had remembered that this is what happened, and seemed to both remember and understand the use of the analogy – even though she was somewhat dismissive of it. I didn't get the chance to explore the issue at the time, but wondered if this was an example of a student maybe not appreciating the role of models and analogies (and simulation) in science itself, and so feeling that using such a device in teaching science was a little 'naff'.

Amy's explanation of the stupid-sounding bit

Amy was dismissive of the teacher's analogical teaching model, even though she seemed to have remembered what he was illustrating:

I mean there was a couple of bits there that you didn't seem too sure about like, like er you know you sort of, you seemed to almost disown the fact that this electron gun is going to make these things into positive ions, you didn't seem very convinced by that?
Erm – I dunno if it's that I'm not convinced it just sounds weird, because it's like erm (pause, c.2s) I dunno, well it's like it's not something which you can see,
No.
and it's like, I dunno, he did this sort of example using a duster and two matchboxes, and, which wasn't very good, so.(Amy was laughing at this point)
Tell me about that then, how does that work? You see I know a bit about this, I don't know about the duster and the matchboxes.
Like no disrespect to our teacher but he uses these analogies, a duster being an atom with matchboxes being the electrons and something, and them being knocked off, because, yeah.
So he threw a matchbox at a duster that had a matchbox and he knocked the matchbox off the duster?
Pretty much.
See, it works for me,
(Amy laughs)
and you've remembered it?
Well, yeah, but – yeah.
…
Erm, So you've got this neutral atom, and you're firing negative electrons at it?
Yeah.
Now if you say that to somebody who doesn't know anything about what's going to happen, what do you think might happen if you fire negative electrons at a neutral atom?, what might you get?
A negative ion.
That's what you'd expect I think, isn't it, … well obviously you are firing negative things at it, so you will get negative. But in fact that's not what seems to happen. So he was trying to explain to you why firing negative things, at something neutral, you might end up with something positive. 'cause that's not obvious and logical, is it?
Yeah.
So if you throw a matchbox at a duster that contains a matchbox, you might knock the match box off?
Yeah (Amy laughs).

There is clearly a 'cultural' difference here, between the interviewer (a science teacher by background) and the interviewee (the learner), in that the interviewer 'got' the use of the demonstration as a pretty neat physical analogy, whereas the student clearly was dismissive. In this case Amy's lack of engagement with the modelling process did not seem to limit her learning, but her attitude demonstrated a lack of awareness of the status and roles of models in science (and in learning science) which has potential to act as a deficiency learning impediment if she cannot see how teaching models and analogies can help form mental models of scientific systems.

Share on Facebook

A theory is an idea that can be proven

Keith S. Taber

Adrian was a participant in the Understanding Science project. When I spoke to him during the his first year (Y12) of his 'A level' course he told me he had been studying quantum theory, and I asked him about the name 'quantum theory'.

So why do we call it the quantum theory because that is an unusual name isn't it?
I don't know.
No?
No.
What's a theory?
An idea that can be proven? Yes.

A modern understanding of the nature of science does not considered that theories are the kinds of things that can be proved in any simply and straightforward sense. Widely accepted theories are usually supported by a good deal of evidence, and individual components of them may be subject to experimental testing, but a theory as a whole can not be proved as such.

I wanted to find out what scientific theories Adrian was familiar with:

Give me an example of a theory you are familiar with?
I'm familiar with?
Yes. Apart from the quantum theory what other theories do you know?
Pythagoras's theorem.
Okay.
It's completely different, which is basically is a squared equals b squared plus c squared…What other theories, erm… I'm not sure.

So Adrian's only other suggestion of a theory was actually a mathematical theorem (which could be logically deduced within a particular system of axioms, unlike a scientific theory which refers to some aspect of the natural world).

I suggested the theory of evolution that Adrian should have met during his secondary science course earlier in the school: but Adrian claimed he was "not familiar with it" asking if it was "e=mc²"(Is the theory of evolution e=mc²?). Adrian recognised this as a formula, but thought that counted as a theory,

Tell me about e=mc² then because I am teaching that this afternoon so… I am teaching that subject this afternoon, so tell me about that, I need to know about that.
It's a formula. I am not sure that it works out, I am not sure that I understand it, was it Isaac Newton I think sort of come up with the theory. I have never used it and I don't know what you would use it for. …
You think that might be a theory as well?
Yes.
and the theory is an idea that can be proven?
Yes.
Yes. So do you think the various theories that scientists have come up with over the years have been proven?
Yes, but some would have limitations to where they can be sort of – How they can be used if that makes sense.
So they have got a kind of range of applications?
Yes.

Share on Facebook

A protein is something which is used for growth and repair

Keith S. Taber

Amy and the role of proteins: a slogan – "proteins are needed for…"

Amy was a participant in the Understanding Science project. Amy was in her first term of 'A level' biology. One of the things she was studying was proteins:

"because proteins do lots of things…they're used for growth and repair, and they form different things like apparently [sic] insulin is a protein"

Amy admitted to be surprised that insulin, which was "made in the pancreas which controls blood glucose levels" should be a protein. She had not expected this "just because you were never told". She has also now learnt that "apparently [sic] haemoglobin is a protein". Amy explained that

"it's just cause like, up until GCSE you're just told that like you know a protein is something which is used for growth and repair, and not that it can be used to make sort of something like insulin"

It seems that at GCSE level (i.e., up to age 16) Amy learnt a slogan relating to the role of proteins – proteins are needed for growth and repair, but a slogan that only related to a processes, without any suggestion of how this might relate to materials and structures. Insulin is considered to be linked to (processes of) sugar regulation, and haemoglobin to (processes of) supplying cells with oxygen. Neither of these processes are seen as growth or repair. It seems 'repair' is primarily understood in terms of damage at the level of tissues, not individual cells or molecules.

This could be considered as an example of a fragmentation learning impediment – the student has not made the link. However, if her school teaching was in terms of the slogan 'proteins are needed for growth and repair', then this could also be seen as a pedagogic learning impediment (a type of grounded learning impediment), as that way of teaching gave Amy a way of thinking about the roles of protein in the body which did not make her receptive to learning that molecules such as insulin and haemoglobin might be proteins.

Share on Facebook

A reaction is just something that happens?

Keith S. Taber

The term 'reaction' is used in at least two different technical senses in school science: in studying forces as one of the components of a interaction between two bodies such that they each experience a force ('action-reaction'), and as a chemical change which leads to a transformation of matter leading to a new substance(s).

Lomash was a participant in the Understanding Science project. Y7 student 'Lomash' reported that he had been heating materials in a Bunsen flame in his science lessons: "We were burning … coal and copper and things like that, metals."

When he heated copper "It went black…because the flame was too hot, and – it just went black , like paper." The copper stayed black after being removed form the flame, and this was because "it's something else, it's a reaction."

Lomash was using the term 'reaction' in the context of a chemical change – the copper had changed to 'something else', suggesting that he had acquired something of the technical meaning of the term as it is used in chemistry. However 'reaction' is used with a much more general meaning in everyday life, and on further questioning it seemed Lomash has not appreciated the special meaning given to the word in chemistry:

I: So what's a reaction?
L: It's like, a reaction is something that happens.
I: Okay, so if I fell off this stool, would that be a reaction?
L: Yeah.
I: And if you laughed at me falling off the stool, would that be a reaction?
L: Yeah.
I: Oh I see. So that's just another name for something that happens is it?
L: Yeah.

Where students already have meanings for words they come across in school science, they are unlikely to spontanously appreciate how the word is used in a specialised, nuanced way in this particular context. Perhaps Lomash's teacher had emphasised that in heating the copper 'something else' was produced, making the observed change a 'reaction'. Certainly Lomash happily accepted this was a reaction, but apparently only in his existing vague everyday sense of the term. His existing linguistic association for the term 'reaction' appeared to act as an associative learning impediment.

Read about learners' alternative conceptions

Share on Facebook

A molecule is a bit of a particle – or vice versa

Keith S. Taber

Tim was a participant in the Understanding Science project. When I talked to Tim during the first term of his 'A level' (college) course, he had been studying materials with one of his physics teachers. He referred to molecules in wood (suggesting the analogy that molecules are like a jigsaw)*, and referred to a molecule as "a bit of a particle",

I: So what's a molecule?
T: Erm it's like a bit of a particle, so, something that makes up something.

He then went on to refer to how malleability depended upon atoms "because it's just what they're made out of, it's different things to make it up, different atoms and stuff". His understanding of the relationship between atoms and molecules was probed:

Ah, so we've got atoms?
Yeah.
Not molecules?
(Pause, c.2s)
This is something different this time?
Yeah.
Oh, okay, tell me about atoms.
I think, I think atoms make up molecules, which make particles. Well there's them three things, but I'm not entirely sure what order they go in, and I think atoms are the smallest one.
So we've got, these three words are related, are they, atoms, molecules, particles?
Yeah.
You think there is a relationship there?
Yeah.
And, what, they are similar in some way, but not quite the same, or?
Erm, yeah I think it's like order of size.
You think atom's the smallest?
Yeah.
And bigger than an atom you might have?
A molecule. No a particle, then a molecule, I think.
Yeah, is that the same for everything do you think? Or, are some things molecules, and some things atoms, and some things particles?
(Pause, c.2s)
I think it's the same, I think it all goes – like that.

The term 'particle' is ambiguous in school science. Sometimes by particle we mean a very small, but still macroscopic objects, such as a salt grain or a dust speck. However, often, we are referring to the theoretical submicroscopic entities such as atoms, molecules, ions, neutrons etc, which are components of our theoretical models of the structure of matter. (These particles, behave in ways that are sometimes quite unlike familiar particle behaviour because of the extent to which quantum effects can dominate at their scale. The term 'quanticle' has been proposed as a collective term for these particles.) Students are expected to know which usage of 'particles' we might mean at any given time.

Tim assumes to have misunderstood how the term particle is used (as a collective term) when used to describe quantiles, and so has come to the understanding that at this level there are three different categories of quanticle based on relative size: the atoms (the smallest), and also molecules and particles which are larger than atoms, but which he is unsure how to relate.

The use of the everyday word particle to refer to theoretical submicroscopic entities by analogy with the more familiar everyday particles is very clear to scientists and science teachers, but can act as an associative learning impediment to learners who may think that quanticle particles are just like familiar particles, but perhaps quite a lot smaller. In Tim's case, however, it seems that a different 'learning bug' had occurred. Presumably he had commonly come across the use of the terms 'atom', 'molecule' and 'particle' in science lessons to describe the components of matter at the submicroscopic level, but had not realised that particle was being used as a generic term rather than describing something different to atoms and molecules.

During his years of school science Tim had constructed a different 'ontology' of the submicroscopic constituents of matter to that expected by his teachers.

Read about learners' alternative conceptions

Share on Facebook

A compound is just a lot of different elements put together

Keith S. Taber

Bert was a participant in the Understanding Science project. When interviewed in Y10 he reported that he had been studying electrolysis in chemistry:

"that's where different elements are, are taken out from a compound…there's a positive anode and a negative cathode. And what it does it attracts the positive part of the compound to the negative cathode, and the negative part goes to the positive , to, you know, so that they can erm get the different elements in the different places, so they can just have one element on its own".

To fully understand what this means from a chemical context the learner needs to appreciate the chemical distinction between elements, compounds and mixtures, so I asked Bert what he thought a compound was:

It's erm, it's er two, er you know, it's just a lot of different elements put together – to create just one.
So if I went and got some elements, let's say I went and got a little file of carbon, a little file of sulphur, a little file of copper, er a little file of magnesium and I were to mix them into a beaker, maybe get a glass rod, give it a good stir, er, give me a compound?
Erm, so it's carbon, erm, carbon, sulphur, magne¬. Carbon, er – What's the fourth one?
Carbon, sulphur, magnesium and copper I think I said.
And copper. All right, erm. Copper, copper sulphate and – and carbon, and I think carbon and magnesium might go just as elements.
Okay, so if I ignored the carbon and magnesium,
Yeah.
if I took some copper and some sulphur,
Yeah.
and mixed them up together,
Yeah.
then I'd get copper sulphate.
Yeah.
And that's a compound now?
Yeah.

In chemistry there is a crucial difference between a mixture and a compound: one which it appeared Bert had not at this point acquired. Presumably his chemistry teacher, in teaching the topic of electrolysis was assuming students in the class would apply prior learning about the difference between elements and compounds, so as to appreciate the significance of electrolysis as a technique which brings about an energetically unfavourable chemical change. This prerequisite knowledge appeared to be lacking for Bert, which provided a deficiency learning impediment when it came to understanding the teaching on electrolysis.

Read about learners' alternative conceptions

Share on Facebook

A cloud is a gas you can see

Keith S. Taber

Bill was a year 7 student who participated in the Understanding Science Project. Bill was explaining that he had been learning about the states of matter, and gave me examples of things he considered to be solids, liquids or gases. I asked him about clouds, because students commonly consider them gases:

So do you think everything, is either a solid, or a liquid or a gas?
I'm not sure? Erm, I think that, some, I think that they are mainly, fall into a group, but I'm not sure.
Not sure about that, okay. Erm, what about a cloud? You look at a nice sky, and there's a cloud? Do you think that's a solid, or a liquid or a gas?
I think that that's a gas that you can see, because it is made up of, I think it is made up of different gases, I'm not sure, though.

Gases are transparent and so generally not visible. A cloud is opaque, and is made up of many tiny droplets of liquid (water in the case of the clouds in the earth's atmosphere) that have been formed by condensation. However, because they remain in the air (until it rains!), it is understandable that students may hold the alternative conception that they are gases themselves. Liquids are much more dense than gases, so it is not immediately obvious to students how a cloud of liquid drops can remain 'floating' in the air. That Bill offered a tentative answer and was not strongly committed to the idea of clouds being gaseous, suggests he was open to revising this view given new evidence to consider.

Read about learners' alternative conceptions

Share on Facebook

A chemical change is where two things just go together

Keith S. Taber

Morag was a participant in the Understanding Science project. In the first interview, in her first term in secondary school, Morag told me that that she was studying electricity having previously studied changing state and burning. When I asked her whether these science topics have anything in common, that made them science, we got into a conversation about chemical reactions, and chemical change:

Do they have anything in common do you think? is there anything similar about those topics?

Changing state and burning's got something in common, but I don't know about electricity.

Oh yeah? So what's, what have they got in common then?

Erm, in burning you have, you could have a chemical reaction, and in changing states you've got chemical reactions as well.

From the canonical scientific perspective, a change of state is not a chemical reaction (so this is an alternative conception), so I followed up on this.

Ah, so what's a chemical reaction?

(I had to learn this) it's when two things, erm, are mixed together and can't be made to the original things easy, easily.

Oh, can you give me an example of that?

{pause, c. 2 seconds}

Water mixing with sugar, but that's not a chemical reaction.

So, Morag offers a definition or at least a description of a chemical reaction, but then the example she gives of that of type of event is not something she considers to be a chemical reaction. (Dissolving is not usually considered a chemical change, although it usually involves the breaking and forming of bonds, sometimes strong bonds.)

Oh so that's something else is it, is that something different?

I don't know.

Don't know, so can you mix water with sugar?

Yeah, but you can't get the water and the sugar back together very easily.

You can't. Is there a way of doing that?

No.

No? So if I gave you a beaker with some sugar in, and a beaker with some water in, and you mixed them together, poured them all in one beaker, and stirred them up – you would find it then difficult to get the water out or the sugar out, would you?

Ye-ah.

Yeah, so is that a chemical reaction?

No.

No, okay. That's not a chemical reaction.

At this point Morag suggested we look in her book as "it's in my book", but I was more interested in what she could tell me without referring to her notes.

So, have you got any examples of chemical reactions – any you think are chemical reactions?

Fireworks,

I: Fireworks, okay.

when like the gunpowder explodes, erm in the inside, and you can't get it back to the original rocket once it's has exploded.

and is that what makes it a, er, a chemical reaction, that you can't get it back?

{pause, c. 3 s}

Yeah, I suppose so.

So, now Morag has presented an example of a chemical reaction, that would be considered canonical (as chemical change) by scientists. Yet her criterion is the same as she used for the dissolving example, that she did not think was a chemical reaction.

Yeah? And then the water and the sugar, you can't get them back very easily, but we don't think that is a chemical reaction?

Yeah – that's a chemical change – {adding quietly} I think.

It's what, sorry?

Well there's, a chemical reaction and a chemical change.

Oh I see. So what's the difference between a chemical reaction and a chemical change?

Erm nothing, it's just two different ways of saying it.

Oh so they're the same thing?

Yeah, just two different ways of saying it.

So, now Morag had introduced a differentiated terminology, initially suggesting that sugar mixing with water was a chemical change, whereas a firework exploding was a chemical reaction. However, this distinction did not seem to hold up, as she believed the terms were synonyms. However, as the conversation proceeded, she seemed to change her mind on this point.

So when a firework goes off, the gunpowder, er, explodes in a firework, that's a chemical reaction?

Yeah – yeah, cause something's mixing with the gunpowder to make it blow up.

…

And So that's a chemical reaction?

Yeah.

And is that a chemical change?

{pause, c. 2 s}

Yeah.

Yeah?

(I suppose.) Yeah.

And when you mix sugar and water, you get kind of sugary water?

Yeah.

Have you got a name for that, when you mix a liquid and solid like that?

{pause, c. 1 s}

Or is that just mixing sugar and water?

{pause, c. 1 s}

There is a name for it, but I don't know it.

Ah. Okay, so when we mix it we get this sugar-water, whatever, and then it's harder to, it's hard to separate it is it?

Yeah.

And get the sugar out and the water out?

Yeah.

So is that a chemical reaction?

{Pause, c. 3 s}

No.

No, is that a chemical change?

{Pause, c. 1 s}

Yes.

Ah, okay.

So, again, Morag was suggesting she could distinguish between a chemical reaction, and a chemical change.

So what's the difference between a chemical change and a chemical reaction?

A reaction is where two things react with each other, like the gunpowder and flame, and a change is where two things just go together. You know like water and sugar, they go together…

In effect we had reached a tautology: in a chemical reaction, unlike a chemical change, things react with each other. She also thought that a sugar/water and a salt/water mixtures (i.e., solutions) were different "because the sugar's so small it would evaporate with the water"*.

The idea that a chemical reactions has to involve two reactants is common, but is an alternative conception as chemists also recognise reactions where there is only one reactant which decomposes.

Morag seemed to be struggling with the distinction between a chemical and a physical change. However, that distinction is not an absolute one, and dissolving presents a problematic case. Certainly without a good appreciation of the submicroscopic models used in chemistry, it is not easy to appreciate why reactions produce a different substance, but physical changes do not. One of Morag's qualities as a learner, however, was a willingness to 'run with' ideas and try to talk her way into understanding. That did not work here, despite Morag being happy to engage in the conversation.

Morag was also here talking as though in the gunpowder example the flame was a reactant (i.e., the flame reacts to the gunpowder). Learners sometimes consider substances in a chemical reaction are reacting to heat or stirring rather than with another substance (e.g., Taber & García Franco, 2010).

Read about learners' alternative conceptions

Source cited:

Taber, K. S., & García Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 99-142.

Share on Facebook