Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Model confusion in chemistry

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

This paper has been a preliminary discussion of model confusion about acids and bases, presenting evidence (some of it to be elaborated) that the Arrhenius and the Lowry-Bronsted models are confused in some textbooks, and in many students' minds.

A similar analysis of other concepts in chemistry (are some problems about ions a results of carrying Daltonian and Newtonian models of atoma beyond their utility—since in those models atoms are unbreakable; are covalent bonding ideas served at all well by the Bohr model of the atom?) may be a valuable area for research.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References Notes

  • Note 1. RUSSELL, S. Private communication, 1983.

References

  • BRADY, J.E., & HUMISTON, G.E.General Chemistry, Principles and Structure (3rd Edition), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • BURNS, J.R. An Evaluation of 6th and 7th Form Chemistry in Terms of the Needs of the Students and the Community. Report to the Department of Education, Wellington, New Zealand, 1982, pp.96–100.

  • CHAMPAGNE, A., KLOPFER, E.L., & GUNSTONE, R.F. Cognitive research and the design of science instruction. Paper presented at the International Workshop on problems concerning students' representation of physics and chemistry knowledge, Padagogische Hochschule Ludwigsburg, September 1981.

  • CHANG, R.Chemistry (2nd Edition) Random House, New York, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • DRIVER, R. & EASLEY, J. Publis and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students.Studies in Science Education, 1978,5, 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • DRIVER, R. & ERICKSON G. Theories-in-Action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science.Sturies in Science Education, 1983,10, 37–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • GILBERT, J.K., OSBORNE, R.J., & FENSHAM, P.J. Children's Science and its consequences for teaching.Science Education, 1982,66(4) 623–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • GILBERT, J.K. & WATTS, D.M. Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education.Studies in Science Education, 1983,10, 61–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • HELM,, H. Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students.Physics Education, 1980,74, 92–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • KUHN, T.The Structure of Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOVAK, J.A Theory of Education. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • PHILBRICK, E.A., HOLMYARD, E.J., & PALMER, W.G.A Textbook of Theoretical and Inorganic Chemistry. Dent & Sons, London, 1949, p. 193.

    Google Scholar 

  • STRANKS, D.R., HEFFERNAN, M.L., LEE DOW, K.C., McTIGUE, P.T., & WITHERS, G.R.A.Chemistry. A structural view (2nd Edn) Melbourne University Press, Melbourne 1970.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Malcolm Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carr, M. Model confusion in chemistry. Research in Science Education 14, 97–103 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356795

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356795

Keywords

Search

Navigation