Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Atom as a Tiny Solar System: Turkish High School Students’ Understanding of the Atom in Relation to a Common Teaching Analogy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Concepts of Matter in Science Education

Part of the book series: Innovations in Science Education and Technology ((ISET,volume 19))

Abstract

Introducing the atom concept in secondary education is problematic from a number of perspectives. For one thing, the concept itself is rather complex (having shifted significantly since its initial historical introduction) and is modelled in a variety of not entirely consistent forms. It is also an entity that is not available to direct perceptions and so is outside the direct experience of learners. The nature of the atom as key concept in learning about chemistry in school science has also been questioned. School teachers are charged with ‘making the unfamiliar familiar’ for learners, and when an unfamiliar concept cannot be demonstrated directly to a class, the teacher introduces it by comparison with what is already within students’ experience. One way of doing this is the teaching analogy, and in the case of the atom, a common teaching analogy is that ‘the atom is like a tiny solar system’. Whilst this comparison has merit, it relies on students having sound knowledge of the structure of the solar system and being able to distinguish positive and negative aspects of the analogy: both assumptions that may be unfounded with many students. A diagnostic instrument designed to test out student understanding of the (planetary model of the) atomic system and the solar system was published as part of a project sponsored by the UK’s Royal Society of Chemistry. In the present study a translated version of that instrument was administered to 458 15–18-year-olds in Turkish schools. It was found that there were strong parallels in the patterns of responses for the two systems, but that only a minority of the students could give an adequate characterisation of the type of forces operating in either system, and only a minority acknowledged that a force between two bodies acts with equal magnitude on both bodies (Newton’s third law – implied in both Coulomb’s law and the universal law of gravity). Examples of student comments, illustrating their thinking, are considered, and the implications for teaching (and in particular the use of the teaching analogy) are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andersson, B. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils’ preconceptions in science. European Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (Eds.). (2006). Metaphor and analogy in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bearman, C. R., Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (2007). The structure and function of spontaneous analogising in domain-based problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(3), 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellocchi, A., & Ritchie, S. M. (2011). Investigating and theorizing discourse during analogy writing in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 771–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, B. J., & Anderson, D. S. (1986). Theory, methods, knowledge and research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 230–252). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, W. F. (2008). Naïve theories of observational astronomy: Review, analysis, and theoretical implications. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 155–204). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K. (2008). Effective chemistry analogies. In A. G. Harrison & R. K. Coll (Eds.), Using analogies in middle and secondary science classrooms (pp. 132–174). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 15–33). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Osborne, R. J. (1980). The use of models in science and science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1985). A conceptual framework for science education: The case study of force and movement. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasersfeld, E. V. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 219–240). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcelos, M., & Nagem, R. (2010). Comparative structural models of similarities and differences between vehicle and target in order to teach darwinian evolution. Science & Education, 19(6), 599–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcelos, M., & Nagem, R. (2012). Use of the ‘tree’ analogy in evolution teaching by biology teachers. Science & Education, 21(4), 507–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 114–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., Carmazza, A., & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: naïve beliefs about the motion of objects. Science, 210, 1139–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.). (1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muldoon, C. A. (2006). Shall I compare thee to a pressure wave?: Visualisation, analogy, insight and communication in physics. Bath: University of Bath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakiboğlu, C. (2008). Using word associations for assessing non major science students’ knowledge structure before and after general chemistry instruction: The case of atomic structure. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(4), 309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakiboğlu, C., & Benlikaya, R. (2001). Misconceptions about orbital concept and modern atom theory (in Turkish). Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi, 9(1), 165–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, J. (1985). The earth as a cosmic body. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 170–192). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orgill, M., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). An analysis of the effectiveness of analogy use in college-level biochemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(10), 1040–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. E. (1960). Cognitive dynamics in the conduct of human affairs. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 341–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolefsky, N. S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2006). Use of analogy in learning physics: The role of representations. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 2(2), 020101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarantopoulos, P., & Tsaparlis, G. (2004). Analogies in chemistry teaching as a means of attainment of cognitive and affective objectives: A longitudinal study in a naturalistic setting, using analogies with a strong social content. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). The force concept inventory: A tool for monitoring student learning. Physics Education, 37(1), 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of academic procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 12–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1979). The open and closed question. American Sociological Review, 44(5), 692–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smardon, R. (2009). Sociocultural and cultural-historical frameworks for science education. In W.-M. Roth & K. Tobin (Eds.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in North America (pp. 15–25). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Styles, B. (2003). Analogy – constructive or confusing? A students’ perspective. School Science Review, 85(310), 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (1998). The sharing-out of nuclear attraction: Or I can’t think about physics in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 1001–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2001). When the analogy breaks down: Modelling the atom on the solar system. Physics Education, 36(3), 222–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2002a). Chemical misconceptions – Prevention, diagnosis and cure: Classroom resources (Vol. 2). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2002b). Chemical misconceptions – Prevention, diagnosis and cure: Theoretical background (Vol. 1). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2003). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: Fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5(1), 43–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2005a). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89(1), 94–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2005b). Mind your language: Metaphor can be a double-edged sword. Physics Education, 40(11), 11–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2008). Exploring student learning from a constructivist perspective in diverse educational contexts. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(1), 2–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2010). Straw men and false dichotomies: Overcoming philosophical confusion in chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(5), 552–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2012). Upper secondary students’ understanding of the basic physical interactions in analogous atomic and solar systems. Research in Science Education, 1–30. doi: 10.007/s11165-012-9312-3.

  • Taber, K. S. (forthcoming). Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing representations of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 537–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S., Kirschner, P. A., Rosenshine, B. V., Jonassen, D. H., & Spiro, R. J. (2007, April 10). Debate: Constructivism, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching – Success or failure? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Stocklmayer, S., Harrison, A., Venville, G., & Thiele, R. (1994). Observations from the classroom: When analogies go wrong! Research in Science Education, 24(1), 380–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals and related concepts: Conceptual difficulties among chemistry students. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsaparlis, G., & Papaphotis, G. (2002). Quantum-chemical concepts: Are they suitable for secodnary students? Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 3(2), 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, M. (1983). A study of schoolchildren’s alternative frameworks of the concept of force. European Journal of Science Education, 5(2), 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, M., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1981). A survey of some children’s ideas about force. Physics Education, 16(6), 360–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement 

The authors thank the teachers in the schools for their support in administering the instrument and acknowledge the Royal Society of Chemistry for funding the Teacher Fellowship project during which the original instrument was developed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Necatibey Education Faculty, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey

    Canan Nakiboğlu

  2. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Keith S. Taber

Authors
  1. Canan Nakiboğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith S. Taber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Canan Nakiboğlu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Chemistry, University of Ioannina, Greece, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, 451 10, Greece

    Georgios Tsaparlis

  2. , Department of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts, Morrissey Blvd 100, Boston, 02125, Massachusetts, USA

    Hannah Sevian

Appendix: The Diagnostic Instrument (in English)

Appendix: The Diagnostic Instrument (in English)

The atom and the solar system

The diagram on the right shows a simple model of an atom.

N is the nucleus, and there are three electrons, labelled 1, 2 and 3.

 

The electrons are attracted to the nucleus.

 

Below are some questions about the atom shown in the diagram.

 

1. What type of force attracts the electrons towards the nucleus?

2. Is electron 3 attracted to the nucleus by a stronger force, a weaker force, or the same size force as electron 1?

 

Why do you think this?

3. Which statement do you think is correct (☑) ?:

the force attracting the nucleus to electron 2 is larger than the force attracting electron 2 to the nucleus.

the force attracting the nucleus to electron 2 is the same size as the force attracting electron 2 to the nucleus.

the force attracting the nucleus to electron 2 is the smaller than the force attracting electron 2 to the nucleus.

there is no force acting on the nucleus attracting it to electron 2.

Why do you think this?

4. Is there any force between electron 1 and electron 3?

Why do you think this?

The atom and the solar system

The diagram on the left shows a simple model of a solar system.

 

S is the sun, and there are three planets, labelled A, B and C.

 

The planets are attracted to the sun.

 

Below are some questions about the solar system shown in the diagram.

5.  What type of force attracts the planets towards the sun?

 

6. Is planet C attracted to the sun by a stronger force, a weaker force, or the same size force as planet A?

 

Why do you think this?

7. Which statement do you think is correct (☑) ?:

the force attracting the sun to planet B is larger than the force attracting planet B to the sun

the force attracting the sun to planet B is the same size as the force attracting planet B to the sun

the force attracting the sun to planet B is the smaller than the force attracting planet B to the sun

there is no force acting on the sun attracting it to planet B

Why do you think this?

8. Is there any force between planet A and planet C?

Why do you think this?

Comparing the atom with the solar system

Look at the diagrams, and try to think of ways in which the atom and the solar system are similar, and ways in which they are different.

List the similarities and differences you can think of:

In which ways are they similar?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In which ways are they different?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nakiboğlu, C., Taber, K.S. (2013). The Atom as a Tiny Solar System: Turkish High School Students’ Understanding of the Atom in Relation to a Common Teaching Analogy. In: Tsaparlis, G., Sevian, H. (eds) Concepts of Matter in Science Education. Innovations in Science Education and Technology, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5914-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation