Advertisement

Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 215–217 | Cite as

Redefining the mole: the perspective of teaching and learning

  • Su-Chi Fang
  • Christina Hart
  • David Clarke
Discussion Forum

Abstract

This commentary draws on the perspective of teaching and learning to discuss the issue of redefining the mole.

Keywords

Mole Amount of substance Stoichiometry 

References

  1. 1.
    Kolb D (1978) The mole. J Chem Educ 55(11):728–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Furió C, Azcona R, Guisasola J (2002) The learning and teaching of the concepts “amount of substance” and “mole”: a review of the literature. Rev Res Pract 3(3):277–292Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnstone AH, Morrison TI, Sharp D (1971) Topic difficulties in chemistry. Educ Chem 6(8):212–213Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dierks W (1981) Teaching the mole. Eur J Sci Educ 3:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Staver JR, Lumpe AT (1993) A content analysis of the presentation of the mole concept in chemistry textbooks. J Res Sci Teach 30(4):321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gabel D, Bunce D (1994) Research on problem solving: chemistry. In: Gabel D (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, vol 11. Macmillan, New York, pp 301–326Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strömdahl H, Tullberg A, Lybeck L (1994) The qualitatively different conceptions of 1 mole. Int J Sci Educ 16(1):17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tullberg A, Strömdahl H, Lybeck L (1994) Students’ conceptions of 1 mole and educators’ conceptions of how they teach “the mole”. Int J Sci Educ 16(2):145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Staver JR, Lumpe AT (1995) Two investigations of students’ understanding of the mole concept and its use in problem solving. J Res Sci Teach 32(2):177–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Padilla K, Furió C (2008) The importance of history and philosophy of science in correcting distorted views of amount of substance and mole concepts in chemistry teaching. Sci Educ 17(4):403–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fang S-C, Hart C, Clarke DJ (2014) Unpacking the meaning of the mole concept foe secondary teachers and students. J Chem Educ 91(3):351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strömdahl H (1997) One mole and amount of substance: a study of the dynamics of concept formation and concept attainment. D. Ed thesis, University of Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Bièvre P (2014) CCQM owes chemists a description of the concept ‘amount of substance’. Accred Qual Assur 19(4):323–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cervellati R, Montuschi A, Perugini D, Grimellini-Tomasini N, Balandi BP (1982) Investigation of secondary school students’ understanding of the mole concept in Italy. J Res Sci Teach 59(10):852–856Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Padilla K, Ponce-de-Leon A, Rembado F, Garritz A (2008) Undergraduate professors’ pedagogical content knowledge: the case of amount of substance. Int J Sci Educ 30(10):1389–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burns DT, Korte EH (2013) The background and implications of the “New SI” for analytical chemists. J Assoc Public Anal (Online) 41:28–44Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barański A (2011) The atomic mass unit, the Avogadro constant, and the mole: a way to understanding. J Chem Educ 89(1):97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Furió C, Azcona R, Guisasola J, Ratcliffe M (2000) Difficulties in teaching the concepts of “amount of substance” and “mole”. Int J Sci Educ 22(12):1285–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mills I, Milton M (2009) Amount of substance and the mole. Chem Int 31:3–7Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Bièvre P (2013) Second opportunity for chemists to re-think the mole. Accred Qual Assur 18(6):537–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jeannin Y (2010) What is mole? A fixed Avogadro constant or a fixed carbon-12 molar mass: which one to choose? Chem Int 32(1):8–10Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fang S-C (2011) Teaching and learning the mole concept: an investigation of science secondary classrooms in Australia and Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vogel D (1992) Atomless chemistry? Why scientists believe what they cannot actually see. Sci Teach 56(8):32–35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.International Centre for Classroom Research, Melbourne Graduate School of EducationUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations