Skip to main content
Log in

Particulate representation of a chemical reaction mechanism

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

Abstract

A growing area of interest in chemical education has been the research associated with conceptual understanding at the particulate level. This study investigated the views of 10 university chemistry lecturers, 85 pre-service chemistry teachers and 23 Secondary 3 (equivalent to Year 9) chemistry students about the particulate level of a chemical reaction, namely the heating of copper (II) carbonate. Four characteristic views were identified on the basis of their diagrammatic representations of particles. These were: (a) formation of intermediates; (b) formation of free particles (e. g., atoms or ions); (c) combination of a and b: formation of free particles (e. g., atoms or ions) first, and then intermediates; (d) no mechanism. Both the majority of the lecturers and the pre-service teachers held an identical view about the reaction mechanism, namely that the decomposition of copper (II) carbonate goes through a transition stage by forming intermediates. In contrast, even though the students were familiar with this reaction, about half of them naïvely believed that copper (II) carbonate broke up on heating and the particles recombined directly to form copper (II) oxide and carbon dioxide, the two observed products. About one-third of the students had neither any notion of how the atoms in the copper (II) carbonate lattice interacted and were rearranged in the reaction nor any concept of bond-breaking and reformation in a chemical reaction.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students' understanding of chemical reaction.International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Silberstein, J., & Mamlok, R. (1990). Macro-micro relationships: A key to the world of chemistry. In P. L. Lijnse, P. De Vos., W. Licht, & A. J. Waarlo (Eds.),Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles (pp. 183–197). Proceedings of a seminar at Utrecht Centre for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.

  • Briggs, J. G. R. (1997).Chemistry “O” Level (3rd ed.). Singapore: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, J. F., & Welford, A. G. (1988). Children's performance in chemistry.Education in Chemistry, 25, 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. L. (1993). Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding.Journal of Chemical Education, 79(3), 193–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 701–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverty, D. T., & McGarvey, J. E. B. (1991). A “constructivist” approach to learning.Education in Chemistry, 28(4), 99–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. W. L, Goh, N. K., & Chia, L. S. (1993, October). Enhancing conceptual understanding in Science instruction. Paper presented at the Teaching in Science Seminar, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

  • Lythcott, J.J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry.Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 248–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meheut, M., Saltiel, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Students' conceptions about combustion (11–12 years old).European Journal of Science Education, 7(1), 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference?Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawrey, B. A. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited.Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 253–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Voorde, H. H. (1990). On teaching and learning about atoms and molecules from a Van Hiele point of view. In P. L. Lijnse, P. De Vos., W. Licht, & A. J. Waarlo (Eds.),Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles (pp. 81–104). Proceedings of a seminar at Utrecht Centre for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.

  • Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 449–459.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kam-Wah Lucille Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, KW.L. Particulate representation of a chemical reaction mechanism. Research in Science Education 29, 401–415 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461601

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461601

Keywords

Navigation