Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2007.27.6.477

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)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.27, no.6, 2007 , pp. 477-487 More about this Journal
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
Representations in chemistry; organic chemistry; learning difficulties in chemistry;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64-66   DOI
2 Dori, Y.J. & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 1-14
3 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
4 Hardwicke, A. J. (1995). Using molecular models to teach chemistry. School Science Review, 77(278), 47-56
5 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   DOI   ScienceOn
6 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
7 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   DOI   ScienceOn
8 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   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Peterson, Q.R. (1970). Some reflections on the use and abuse of molecular models. Journal of Chemical Education, 47(1), 24-29   DOI
10 Tasker, D. & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: Visualization of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 141-159   DOI
11 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   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Zare, R. N. (2002). Visualizing Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(11), 1290-1291   DOI   ScienceOn
13 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
14 Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry: logical or psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9-15   DOI
15 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
16 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
17 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   DOI   ScienceOn
18 ColI R.K. & Treagust D.F., (2001), Learners' mental models of chemical bonding, Research in Science Education, 31 (3), 357-382   DOI   ScienceOn
19 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
20 Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701 -704   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Zieba, M.L. (2004). Teaching and learning about reaction mechanisms in organic chemistry. Unpublished thesis, University of Western Australia
22 Khan, S. (2005). Constructing Visualizable Models in Chemistry. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Conference, Montreal, 11 th-15th, April
23 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   DOI
24 Meislick, H., Nechamkin, H., & Sharfkin, J. (2000). Organic chemistry. New York: Hill McGraw
25 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   DOI
26 Gilbert, J.K. & Boulter, C. (2001). Developing models in science education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher
27 Harrison A.G., (2001). Textbooks for outcomes science: a review, The Queensland Science Teacher, 27, 20-22
28 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
29 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   DOI
30 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
31 Han, J. & Roth, W.M. (2005). Chemical inscriptions in Korean textbooks: Semiotics of macro and microworld. Science Education, 90(2),173-201   DOI   ScienceOn
32 McMurry, J. (1992). Organic chemistry: 3rd edition. Wadsworth: Cole Publishing Company
33 Nyle, M. J. (1993). From chemical philosophy to theoretical chemistry. Berkeley: University of California Press
34 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   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Ferk, V. & Vrtacnik, M. (2003). Students' understanding of molecular structure representations. International Journal of Science Education. 25(10), 1227-1245   DOI   ScienceOn
36 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   DOI
37 Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Wu, H. K. & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465-492   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Gilbert, J.K., Jong, O. D., Justi, R. & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Chemical education: Towards research based practice. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers
40 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   DOI   ScienceOn
41 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   DOI   ScienceOn
42 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
43 Jones, M. B. (2001). Molecular modelling in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(7), 867-868   DOI   ScienceOn
44 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
45 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   DOI
46 Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. Amercian Anthropologist, 96, 606-633   DOI   ScienceOn
47 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