Volume 2, Issue 2, April 2014, Page: 65-70
Anthropomorphic Notion of Atoms, the Etiology of Pedagogical and Epistemological Learning Proactive Interference among Chemistry Learners: Implications
Ephias Gudyanga, Midlands State University, Faculty of Education, Gweru, Zimbabwe
Received: Apr. 14, 2014;       Accepted: Apr. 30, 2014;       Published: May 10, 2014
DOI: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20140202.15      View  2425      Downloads  104
This study, based on qualitative design and informed by both the interpretive and participatory paradigms, sought to find out anthropomorphic notion of atoms, the etiology of pedagogical and epistemological learning proactive interference among Chemistry learners. The concept of octet rule has been found to cause proactive interference in the teaching and learning of bonding and chemical structures. A convenient sample of 8 Advanced Level Chemistry teachers, all B. Sc degree holders with a minimum teaching experience of 2 years were involved in focus group discussion together with the researcher trying to identify misconceptions caused by octet rule in Chemistry teaching and learning and the way forward in pedagogics of chemical bonding. Several concepts were highlighted as areas of concern where proactive interference do take place, among others ligand formation in transition metals, hybridization and covalent bonding. Teaching strategies were highlighted as one way to minimize misconception formation at Advanced Level Chemistry learning. Curriculum planners and textbook authors were to revisit their approaches in chemical bonding. The driving force of chemical bonding and chemical reactions must be known as the need for a decrease in free energy of the system or the increase in entropy of the universe. Teachers need to introduce a general notion of bonding based on electrical interactions. Several other teaching strategies were recommended.
Misconceptions, Octet, Bonding, Structure, Entropy, Energy, Atom, Chemistry, Learner
To cite this article
Ephias Gudyanga, Anthropomorphic Notion of Atoms, the Etiology of Pedagogical and Epistemological Learning Proactive Interference among Chemistry Learners: Implications, Science Journal of Education. Vol. 2, No. 2, 2014, pp. 65-70. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20140202.15
Gudyanga, E., & Madambi, T. (2014). Pedagogics of chemical bonding in Chemistry; perspectives and potential for progress: The case of Zimbabwe secondary education. International Journal of Secondary Education, 2(1), 11-19. doi: 10.11648/ijsedu.20140201.13
Carter, S. and Brickhouse, N. (1999). What makes Chemistry difficult? Journal of Chemical Education, 66, 223-225.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A Users Manual. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, N. J.
Gilbert, J. (2003). Explaining with models. In M. Ratcliffe (ed). ASE Guide to Secondary Science Education, London: Stanley Thornes.
Ross, B. Munby, H. (1991). Con-cept mapping and misconceptions: A study of high-school students’ understanding of acids and bases. International Journal of Science Education, 13 (1), 11-23
Tan, K. D. and Treagust, D. F. (2001). Evaluating students’understanding of chemical bonding. School Science Review, 81 (294), 75-83.
Boo, H. K. (1998). Mental models: The role of representations in problem solving in Chemistry. International Council for Association in Science Education. Summer Symposium, Proceedings.
Taber, K. S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of Chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 123-158.
Banks, M. (2007). Using Visual Data in Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (2 nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Jenninings, G. R. (2005). Interviewing: A Focus on QualitativeTechni-ques. In R. Ritchie, P. Burns & C. Palma (Eds.), Tourism Research Methods: Intergrating Theory with Practice. Wallingford: CABI Publishers.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry. In J. Green, G. Camilli & P.Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 375-385.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harrison, A. G. and Treagust, D. F. (2001). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with mod-els? School Science and Mathematics, 98, 420-429.
Taber, K. S. (2003). An alternative conceptual framework from Chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 597-608.
Griffiths, A. and Preston, K. (1992). Grade-12 students’misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 29, 611-628.
Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from Chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20 (5), 597-608.
Boo, H. K. (2000). Pre-service teachers’ content weaknesses concerning chemical bonds and bonding, Singapore: National Institute of Chemistry.
Huheey, J. E. (1998). Inorganic Chemistry principles of structure and reactivity. New York: Harper International Edition.
McMurry, J. and Fray, R. C. (1998). Chemistry. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Coll, R. K. and Taylor, N. (2001). Alterna-tive conceptions of chemical bonding held by upper secondary and tertiary students. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(2), 171-191.
Miha, L. (2007). Miha Lee’s mis-conception report, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.
Taber, K. S. and Watts, M. (1996). The secret life of the chemical bond: students’ anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science Education. 18 (5). 557-568.
Weinhold, F. & Landis, C.R. (2005). Valency and Bonding: A Natural Bond orbital Donor-Acceptor Perspective: Cambridge University Press.
Browse journals by subject