Why Some Students Don't Learn Chemistry

Chemical Misconceptions
Mary 6. Nakhleh
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Many students at all levels struggle to learn chemistry,
but are often unsuccessful. Diswvering the reasons has
been the target of many studies. One possible answer that
is beginning to emerge is that many students are not constructing appropriate understandings of fundamental
chemical concepts from the very beginning of their studies
(I).Therefore, they cannot fully understand the more advanced concepts that build upon the fundamentals.
In this article, I first present a cognitive model of learning chemistry. Then I discuss students' chemical misconceptions (their inappropriate understandings) in terms of
a fundamental wncept-the particulate, kinetic nature of
matter. Finally, the implications of these findings for instruction are considered.
A Cognitive Model of Learning
Research in students'conceptual knowledge of chemistry
is based on a model of learning in which students construct
their own concepts (2.3). According to the cognitive model
of learning, during instruction learners generate their own
meaning based on their background, attitudes, abilities,
and experience.

The Learning Cycle

Learners selectively attend to the flow of information
presented, and their prewnceptions determine the information to which they pay attention. Then the brain actively interprets this selected information and draws inferences based on i t s stored information. The newly
generated meanings are then actively linked to the learner's prior knowledge base.
Thus, learning is viewed as a cyclical process. First, the
new information is compared to prior knowledge. Then it
is fed back into that same knowledge base.
Cognitive Structures
Thus, acwrding to the wgnitive model, students build
sensible and coherent understandings of the events and
phenomena in their world from their own point of view (3).
In this paper, these coherent understandings are referred
to as cognitive structures (4). Since these coherent understandings are in place, words such as "atom" and "nentralization" are actually labels that stand for elaborated cognitive structures stored in the brain (3).
Concepts and Propositions
These elaborated cognitive structures are themselves
composed of interrelated wncepts. Each concept itself is
formed by a linked set of simple, declarative statements
called propositions that represent the body of knowledge
the student possesses about that concept (4).An example
of a proposition is the statement "An atom contains a nucleus."
Concepts, therefore, are considered to be the set of propositions that a person uses to infer meaning for a particular topic, such as the nucleus of an atom. These wncepts
are then linked with the students' other concepts to form

integrated cognitive structures of chemical knowledge.

The information students use to wnstruct their concepts
comes from two sources: public knowledge, as presented in
texts and lectures; and informal prior knowledge from evewday experiences, parents, peers, commercial products,
and the common meanings of scientific terms (41.
Misconceptions
Since students do build their own wnce~ts.their constructions of a chemical concept sometimes h&r from the
one that the instructor holds and has trled to oresent. Garnett et al. (5)state that these different wncepts have been
variously described by different researchers as precouceptions (6), misconceptions (6), alternative frameworks (71,
children's science (a), and students' descriptive and explanatory systems (9).
In this paper the term "misconception" means any concept that differs from the commonly accepted scientific understanding of the term. Once integrated into a student's
cognitive structure, these misconceptions interfere with
subsequent learning. The student is then left to connect
new information into a cognitive structure that already
holds inappropriate
knowledge. Thus, the new information
.. .
cannot be connected appropriately totheir cognitive structure, and weak understandinm
- or misunderstandings
. of
the concept will occur.
Current Work on Chemical Misconceptions
Most of the work that has been done on misconceptions
in chemistry was done relatively recently-in the 1980's.
Misconceptions in physics and biology have been more intensively studied. Thus, misconceptions in chemistry represents a fertile field for investigation.
This article synthesizes recent findings about the chemical misconceptions of students from the elementary and
middle school level through the undergraduate level. Most
of the misconceptions that have been identified reveal a
weak understanding of the currently accepted model of
matter. In this model, matter is composed of small, mobile
particles such as atoms, molecules, and ions. Thus, the
particulate and kinetic aspects of the current model of
matter are used as a framework for presenting the findings
of the studies.
Although this description of the cognitive model of learningis brief, it can be seen that this model is a powerful tool
that can aid in developing and understanding cognitive
structures. This model is a part of Bodner's theory of constructivism that is dealt with in more detail in ref 10 than
is possible in this article.
Student Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter
Students of all ages seem to have trouble understanding
and using the scientifically accepted model that matter is
made of discrete particles that are in constant motion and
have empty space between them (11, 12). Indeed, an acceptable concept of the particulate nature of matter lays
the foundation for understanding many chemical concepts:
Volume 69 Number3 March 1992

191

chemical reactions; the effects of pressure, volume, and

temperature on gases; changes &state; dissolving; and
equilibrium (13).Unfortunately, many students from all
age groups appear to view matter as being made of a continuous medium that is static and space-filling.
Misconceptions of Matter as a Continuous Medium

I n one of the earliest studies on student understanding

of the particulate nature of matter (11,121,students from
elementary school to the university level were tested concerning their acceptance of the particle model as it applies
to gases. The results revealed that over half ofthe students
from junior high to senior high to university level held concepts that were consonant with a perception of matter as a
continuous medium, rather than as an aggregation of particles.
Differential Acceptance
The authors also present evidence that the components
of the particulate model of matter were differentially accepted:~hemost readily accepted parts of the model were
those closest to observable phenomena.
For example, the representation of the liquefaction of
gases as a coalescing of particles was accepted by a t least
70% of the students at the junior high level and beyond.
Here the particle explanation does not conflict with observable bulk phenomena. However, only 40% of the students
in the same group accepted the concept that particles in
the gaseous phase have empty space between them. This
concept is not obvious from observable bulk phenomena.
Grade 9

Figure 1. Arepresentation of students'concept of the microscopic nature of a solution of HCI.

Misconceptions of Atoms and Molecules

Grade 12
Griffiths and Preston (171interviewed grade 12 Canadian students to investigate their understanding of the
concepts of a molecule and an atom. The students were divided into three groups-"academic science", "academic
nonscience", and "nonacademic nonscience". Griffiths and
Preston identified 52 misconceptions. Among these misconceptions, the five listed below were held by half the students in the sample.
That molecules are much larger than they probably are.
That molecules of the same substance may vary in size.
That molecules of the same substance can change shapes in
differentphases.
That molecules have different weights in different phases.
That atoms are alive.

Krajcik (14)interviewed grade 9 students and asked

them to draw how the air in a flask would appear if they
could see it throueh a verv wwerful maenifvim elass. He
found that 14 of &e 17 s s e n t s held aconknio& model
of matter. These students did not draw air as comvosed of
tiny particles. Instead, they simply drew wavy lines to represent the air in the flask.

Figure 2 is a representation of the common misconception

that molecules expand when they are heated.

Grade 10
Ben-Zvi, Eylon, and Silberstein (15)used a questionnaire to investigate the beliefs about matter held by 300
grade 10 students who had been studying chemistry for
half of the academic year. The questionnaire asked students to comoare the orooerties of two atoms: one taken
from a piece if copper kr;, and one that had been isolated
from the eas that formed when the comer wire vaoorized.
~ e a r l y h a l of
f the students believed 'that the buik properties of the substance-such as electrical conductance,
color, and malleability-were also properties of a single
atom. Apparently, although the students could use the
terms "atom" and "molecule", they could not relate these
terms to the particulate model of matter. This indicates
that the students still held their older, continuous model of
matter. They had merely added the particulate model to
their continuous one.

Figure 2. A representation of students'conceptthat molecules expand

when heated.

Grade 11
Nakhleh (16)interviewed grade 11 chemistry students
who were in the last quarter of the academic year. These
students had recently completed a unit on acids and bases.
I n this study, it appeared that 20% of the students still
held a simplistic, undifferentiated view of matter.
When asked how a solution of a n acid or a base would
appear under a very powerful magnifying glass, these students drew waves, bubbles, or shiny patches. Figure 1 is a
revresentation of a solution as viewed from this continuous perspective.
192

Journal of Chemical Education

In addition, the "academic science" group exhibited another set of misconceptions to a far greater degree than the
other groups. Specifically, 30-70% of the academic science
group held the following five misconceptions.
That water molecules were composed of solid spheres.
That pressure affects the shape of a molecule.
That molecules expand when heated.
That the size of an atom depends on the number of protons it
has.
That collisions between atoms alter atomic sizes.
GriEths and Preston argue that these misconceptions
could have risen as a result of instruction.
University Level
At the universitv level. Cros et al. (18)interviewed firstyear undergraduates regarding their conceptions ol'atoms.
Thev found that students were aenerallv auite successful
in naming the parts of a n atom or a nucieui. However, the

students were much less successful when they attempted

to describe the interactions of these particles. The students
tended to invoke a simplistic Bohr model of the atom in
their explanations.
Cros et al. interpret these fmdings to mean that the students' knowledge tended to be formal and qualitative,
"with a worrying lack of wnnection with everyday life". A
followup study (19) found that students'ability to explain
the interactions of subatomic particles had improved only
slightly despite a year of university study
Misconceptions of Molecules and Intermolecular Forces
Grade 12

Students apparently have similar difficulties with comprehending the bonding and structure of covalent molecules (20). Peterson and Treagust used a paper and pencil
test to study the understanding attained by grade 12
chemistry students concerning simple covalent molecules,
such as HF. They identified eight misconceptions that
dealt with bond ~olaritv.molecular shaoe. molecular DOlarity, intermolechar forces, and the octet rule.
Within these categories, 2&34% of the students held a t
least one misconception. The data indicate that 74% of the
students could not correctly apply valence-shell electronpair repulsion theory to identify structures of molecules.
For examole. 25% considered only the re~ulsionof bonding
electron &I&, and another 22%eonsidered only the effect
of nonbonding electron pairs. Another 27% decided that
bond polarity determined the shape of a molecule. However, 78% ofthe students could correctly answer a test item
designed to test their understanding of the principles of
this theory.
Also, the students tended to identify intermolecular
forces with the covalent bond within the molecule. They
did not seem to be aware of the general difference in magnitude that exists between the strength of a covalent bond
and the strength of an intermolecular force. A number of
students also believed that the number of electrons in the
valence shell of a nonmetal atom equals the number of wvalent bonds formed by that atom.
Misconceptions of Phase Changes

Consistent with their hazy ideas about atoms and molecules. students also aooear to have difficult^ exdainina
phase changes. ~ s b o k e a n Cosgrove
d
(21)fo&d ihat stul
dents, rangingin age from 8 to 17 years, described the bubbles formed by boiling water as being made of air, oxygen,
or hydrogen. Many also had great difficulty in explaining
how a saucer held over the boiling water became wet and
why it dried offwhen it was removed from the steam. Interkstingly, Osborne and Cosgrove report that the students
could ~enerallyuse the wrms "condensation" and "evaporation? .owever, under further questioning, the students
could not explain what these terms meant.
Bodner (22) administered a conceptual knowledge test to
entering chemistry graduate students over a three-year
period. His data indicate that even some graduate students, who majored in chemistry, may still have difficulty
understanding some concepts. For example, one of the
questions told students to assume that a beaker of water
has been boiling for one hour. The students were then
asked to state tce composition of the bubbles rising to the
surface. Out of 120 students. 25% reported that the bubbles were made of air or oxygen or hydrogen.
Misconceptions of Gases

Work on students'conceptions of gases also supports the

assertion that many students, across a wide range of ages,
hold an inappropriate model of matter. Furio Mas, Perez,

and Harris (23) found that many Spanish students, ranging in age from 12 to 18 years, hild an Aristotelian view of
gases as weightless substances. Therefore, they wuld not
correctlv oredict the weicht of a sealed container in which
a liquidwas evaporated."students believed that the gases
had lost mass and weight and that this was the reason
they rose. The authors concluded that one of two explanations was oossible: Either these students could not comprehend .j&etic theory, or they understood the theory but
could not apply it to explain the behavior of gases.
Stavy (24) corroborated these findings and determined
that students acquire the full particulate, kinetic model of
a gas slowly-usually one to two years after the subject
has been taught during formal instruction. Students in
grades 4-7 phmari~yexplained gases in terms of examples. Students in grades 7 and 8 often referred to gases as
a form of matter, even though they had been taught the
particulate theory of matter in grade 7. However, in grade
9, students began to explain gases in terms of the particulate theory of matter after a two-year time lag.
Stavy also notes that the students did not apply the particulate model consistently. Students apparently found it
dimcult to explain solids and liquids in terms of the particulate model, but they could do so for gases. She suggests
that the particulate model for gases is less counter-intuitive, and thus more understandable, than the particulate
model for solids or liquids.
A series of studies have investigated concept learning as
it oertains to eases (25-27). These studies involved universiiy freshmanufrom three universities from the East Coast,
the Midwest. and the West Coast. In eachcase. the number
of students kho could solve traditional gas law or stoichiometry questions was much higher than the number who
could answer the conceptual questions. The differences in
performances were generalls large.
- For example, on one stoichioietry problem 66% of 323
students could answer a traditional question, but only 11%
could answer the conceptual question. Students were not
able to move from their algebraic knowledge
- of gas
. laws to
a particulate model of gas&.
Students' Conceptions of the Kinetic Aspects
of the Particulate Model of Matter
Research is also beginning to show that many students
also hold a static, rather than kinetic, conception of the
particulate model of matter. The evidence for this assertion is that students have been shown to encounter difficulty in the following three areas.

Students a h n are unable to state that balanced chemical

equations represent the rearrangement of atoms (28,291.
Students have difficulty in recognizing and describing instances of obvsical
. " or chemical chance (2932).
Students envision chemical equilibria and steady state as
essentially static conditions (33, 34).
Misconceptions of Chemical Equations

Many students perceive the balancing of equations as a

strictlv algorithmicexercise. Yarroch ,281 interviewed high
schooich&stry students on how they balanced the xi&ple equations used to describe reactions such as
N, + H, + NH,
These students were ranked by their teachers as A and B
students, and they were interviewed during the last quarter of the school sear.
All of the students succe~sfullybalanced the equations.
However, half of them wuld not draw a correct molecular
diagram to explain the equations in the microscopic system. Although the unsuccessful students were able to draw
diagrams with the correct number of particles, they
Volume 69 Number 3

March 1992

193

seemed unable to use the information contained in the coefficients and subscripts to construct the individual molecules. These students represented 3Hz as
000000

rather than as
00 00 00

Figure 3 illustrates students'lack of understanding of the

DurDose of coefficients and suhscri~tsin formulas and bal;need equations.

5 . Chemieal interaction occurs.This is a category where acceptable answers would be found. Typically the student

would say that oxygen in the air reacted with the copper
pipe to form a wpper oxide coating on the pipe. For the
other question, they think that the steel wool burned because oxygen wmbined with the inn. At best, only 15%of
the students in the study could answer the last problem
correctly.

All of the above categories except the last one represent

responses that show that the student lacks a n understandingof the following underlying conceptions.
That matter is composed of particles.
That these particles are in constant motion.
That these particles can react with each other by breaking or
forming bonds.

Figure 3. A representation of students'concept ofthe microscopic na.

ture of the reaction between nitrogen and oxygen.
Ben-Zvi, Eylon, and Silberstein (29) agree that balancing
and interpreting equations is a formidable task. As an example, they performed a task analysis on the combustion
of hydrogen, as represented by the equation
2HzW + Oz@) + 2HzO(g)

Thev
" areue that an a m r o ~ r i a t einternretation of this
equation requires that a learner understand many things:
the structure and physical state of the reactants and products, the dynamic nature of the particle interactions, the
auantitative relationshins amone the ~articles.and the
iarge numbers of particl& involved.
A.

Misconceptions of Chemical Change

Static us. Dynamic Models
Many students also invoke static models to explain
chemical chanees. Andersson (30) studied students. rang..
mg in age from 12 to 15 years, from Sweden where chemi s t instruction
~
starts in made 7 or 8. At least 90ci ofthe
stuients had studied oxid&ion.
He asked the students to explain the appearance and
disappearance of substances in a chemical change. As an
example, he asked students

Why doshiny copper waterpipes tarn dull and tarnished?

What happens when a nail ~ U S ~ S ?

He found that the students'answers tended to fall into the

following five categories.
this raw, studcntr a n simply uninkre9tt.d in the change. lt'sjust something that they nouce
happens.

1 . It's just that way. I n

2. Displacement h m one physieal loeation to another

occurs. In this category students envisioned that a coating simply materializes, either from the air, as with rust
on a nail, or from the water inside the pipes.
3. The material is modified. In this view, students argue
that what appears to be a new substanee is actually the
original substance-just in a modified form. An example
of this would be when a student thinks that the wpper
pipe simply turns dark due to heat. They think that it
continues to be the same substance, although it does look
different.
4. 'Pansmutation ocrure Students in this category would
explarn that steel wuol gam* weight as it burns becawe
the steel wool is changed into carbon, which is heavier. In
this view, atoms simply change into a new kind of atom.

194

Journal of Chemical Education

A static representation of chemical change was also

found bv Ben-Zvi. Evlon. and Silberstein (29). Thev asked
grade i0 students, &ho bad been studying chemikry for
half a vear. to draw what thev thoueht the followine elec-

They found that 58% of the students drew static representations. Only 38% drew any kind of dynamic representation. In fact, one student specifically noted on the drawing
that the "2" in front of the "K"didn't mean anything molecularly because it was used for balancing purposes only!
Additive Changes
Ben-Zvi, Eylon, and Silberstein (29, 35) also note that
some students seem to have .an additive model of reaction:
Compounds are viewed as being formed by simply sticking
fragments together, rather than as being created by the
breaking and reforming of bonds.
For example, when asked if NO could be formed by a reaction between 0 2 and Nz, a student explained that they
could not because neither O2 nor Nz could be decomposed.
This type of answer is consistent with a static model of
matter. Figure 3 also illustrates students' misconception
that chemical reactions are simply additive.
Chemical us. Physical Changes
Stavridou and Solomonidou (32) studied Greek students,
ranging in age from 8 to 17 years, as they attempted to
classifv events as nhvsical chanees or cbemical chanees.
Their data indicati that over half of their students incurrectlv classified a chemical chanec as "no chanw."The author; note that these students seem to use :very static
model for these events.
They also report that these students seemed to focus on
the "external manifestationd nfthr nhenomena. which led
them to incorrect conclusions in thii case. An interesting
finding, which has not been reported elsewhere, is that
some of the students who did have a concept of change
nonetheless seemed to think that only physical changes
were reversible. Thus, to them, chemical changes were always seen as irreversible.

Misconceptions Concerning Equilibrium

Sidedness and Dynamism
Gussarsky and Gorodetsky (34) used word associations
to probe the understandings that grade 12 Israeli students
held of chemical equilibrium. They found that students
tended not to perceive the equilibrium mixture as an entity; rather, they manipulated each side of the cbemical
equation independently, as if it were a balance. These au-

thors soeculate that the method used to teach LeChatelier's principle, if it is applied by mte, may even strengthen
this inabilitv to treat the eauilibrium mixture as a whole.
The studekts also failed understand the dynamic nature of equilibrium. They assumed that reaching a balanced condition, as described in their text, meant that no
further reaction was occurring. The authors note that students confused everyday meanings for equilibrium with
chemical equilibrium. To the students, "equilibrium"
meant physical balance like riding a bicycle, or mental balance, or balance in the sense of weighing. In any of these
everyday uses of the word, the state of equilibrium is characterized by a static, balanced condition.
They also note that equilibrium problems are often
hiehlv abstract. and the algebraic manioulations can be
pekokaed by rote. heref fore, students i o not automaticallv understand what mani~ulatinealeebraic svmbols or
other symbols really means in relation to the actual chemical svstem heine studied. Furthermore. the mi sconce^tions Eegarding sLdeduess and dynamismseem to be re&t a n t to instruction. The authors recommend directly
confronting these misconceptions in instruction.

- -

Reaction Rates and Concentrations

Australian high school chemistry students have also exhibited miscouceptions of equilibrium, even aRer instruction (36). In an interview, students were required to expla~nand p a p h the changes that can occur in the reaction
rates and the roncentrations during the following reaction
betweennitric oxide and chlorine to form nitrosyl chloride:
2NO(g)+ C12(g)$ 2NOCl(g)+ heat
The students revealed misconceptions that relate to both
the articulate nature of matter and to the dvnamic nature
of cAemical reactions. Fully 50% of the students held that
the concentrations of reactants and products were governed by a simple arithmetic relationship. Most often they
thought that the concentrations of the products equal the
conc&trations of the reactants a t eqklihrium. The authors a r m e that this misconception was based on the fact
that they do not understand how the coefficientsin a chemical equation are used in the equilibrium expression.
&a&, this finding offers additional evidence that students do not have extensive or securely based knowledge
concerning how to regard and apply the symbolism of a
chemical equation. Also, over half of the students expressed the belief that when an equilibrium was disturbed,
the initial result was that the rate of the favored reaction
would he increased and that the rate of the competing reverse reaction would be decreased. This also implies that
students have a poor understanding of the dynamics of an
equilibrium system.
Approaching LeChatelier Problems
Finally, Kozma et al. (37) studied the understanding of
equilibrium that college freshmen had attained. They gave
students from introductorv chemistrv courses a written.
constructed-response test chat probedqtheirunderstanding
of equilibrium concepts. Students were also required to
verbalize their thoughts as they worked through the test.
Kozma et al. used the students' verbal commentary and
their written answers to identify two groups of students
whose conce~tionsof eouilibrium were inconsistent vnth
the scientificconceptio~
One group had an acceptable understanding that equilibrium involves a dynamic exchange among the components of the system, while the concentrations are held cons t a n t . However, these students could not use t h a t
knowledge to solve LeChatelier problems.

The other group could manipulate the symbols to solve

LeChatelier problems but incorrectly thought that equilibrium meant that there was no dynamic interchange between the components of the system. They maintained
that dvnamic interchange occurred onlv when a svstem
was stressed and that t6e interchanges-ceased when the
new equilibrium point was reached.
Implications of These Misconceptions
Creating a cognitive structure of a &mplex body of
knowledge such as chemistry is not easy, and it is small
wonder that students from middle school to colleee level
find chemistry difficult. Obviously, no amount of Fnstruction will help a student who is not determined to work, but
the research presented in this article does have several implications for instruction on anv level.
First. a ~ ~ a r e n t there
lv
are orofound misconceotions in
the mind; bfmany students frbm a wide range oicultures
concernine the articulate and kinetic nature of matter.
Some of tgese n&conceptions persist even up to the graduate level.

Therefore, educators should help students begin to understand the differences between atoms, molecules, and ions.
Students also need help discerning the conditions under
which each term is appropriate. Students should be reminded that if they can't explain a concept in molecular
terms, then they really don't understand it.
Second, apparently students do not spontaneously visualize chemical events as dynamic interactions. Without an
understanding of the kinetic behavior of particles, many
topics in chemistry do not make conceptual sense and are
learned by rote.
Therefore, students must be helped to realize that certain
tonics relate to an underlvine
. " assumotion of a kinetic model
of matter: the hehawor o f g s s r r , phase chances, solution
chemistry, equrlibrium,el~ctrwhernistry,
and general chemical reactions.
Third, the cognitive model of learning implies that misconceotions can occur when students come for instruction
holdiig meanings for everyday words that differ from the
scientific meanine. For example.
& ."heat" and "temoerature"
are commonly used scientific terms for which students
hold persistent misconceptions (3843).

.Therefore, educators should intrbduce scientific terms by

emphasizingthe differences between the everyday meaning
and the more precise scientificmeaning.

Fourth. leamine is much more difficult if students must

master different definitions for the same phenomenon. For
example, students who take both physics and chemistry
might become confused over the opposing views of electrical flow through a circuit (5).The same authors also note
that reduction and oxidation can be defined in various
terms: as a chame in oxidation number: as a gain or loss of
oxygen; or as thegain or loss of electrons.

-.

Therefore. educators need to be esoeciallv orecise when explamnp topm that have multrple definuians. Krajrik 113)
has rrwewrd srvrml srudics of traehmg conceptual change
that illustrate these points.

A helpful course of action would be to include questions

on examinations that specifically probe for misconceptions. This would accomplish two goals. Educators would
have a more accurate estimate of students'actual cognitive
structures, and students might give more serious thought
to understanding the conce~ts.Students would then have
a better chance i f becoming meaningful learners of chemistry
Volume 69 Number 3 March 1992

195

Literature Cited
1. Gabel. D. L.: Samuel, K V.; Hunn, D. J. C h m . Educ 1981,M,695497.
2. Winrock, M. C. Edvc Psyehol. 1578.13,IMO.
3. Osbome, R. J.; WitMck, M. C. Sci. E d w . 1983.67.489508.
4. west, L. H ; Fensham. P. J.; Garnard, J . E. I" cognitiue Sfrudvre a d cowpfu.i
Chonw: West, L. H. T: Pines, A. L., E d s ; Academic Press: Orlando, FL,1985;
Chspier3.
5. Gamete, P. J.; Gemetf P J.; Treagurt D. F IN J. Sci. Edue 1930 12, 141-156.
J. stud& in scl. E ~ U C .1 8 ~ s 5.61-84.
.
6. Driver R.E~SISV.
7. Driver. R.; Erickon, G. Sludrps in Sci. Educ ISW, 10,37-60.
H.Olbome,R.;Reyberg,P. Learning i " S c r p m : T h ImplicationsofChiidr~nSSelonee;
Heinernan: Auckland, Nsw Zealand, 1985.
9. Champagle.A B.; Klopfer, L. E.; Omatone, R . R E d u c Psychologrst 1982,17,31-53.
10. Bodner,G. J ChPm. Edue 1988,63,673378.
11. Novlck. S.: Nvssbaum J. Sci. Edue 1978,62.273-282.
12. Novlck.S.;Nussbaum J S c i E d w . 1981.65, 187-196.
13. Krajcik, J. S. In The Psychology oflaorning Science; Glynn, S.; Yeaney,R.: Brinon,
Eds; E~lbeum:Hilldale. NJ, 1990.
14. Krajcik, J. S., Paper presented a t the American Anthmpologld Asadation, Washington, DC,1989.
15. Ben-2%. R.; Eylon, B.; Silberstein, J. J C h m . E d w . 1988.63.84-66.
16. Na*hleh. M. B.. P a ~ e ~r r e ~ e n t estd the annual rneetine ofthe American Chemical
sooety. ~ t h t a GA,
. i991.
17. Grififha, A. K, Preston, K. R., Papr presented at the National Asadation for Research in Science Teaching. Ssn Raneisw. 1989.
18. Cms, D.; Mautin, M.; Amoumux, R.; Chastrette, M.: Leber, J.: Fayol, M. Eur J Sd.
Educ 1986,8,305313.
19. Cms,D.:Chastrette, M.: Fayol, M. Inf.J. Sei,Edue. 1988,10,331-336.
2 0 P e t e r m . R. F ; l h a g u s t , D. F J Cham.Edue. 1999, 66,45%460.

. .

196

..

..

Journal of Chemical Education

21.Osbome.R. J.; Cosgroue, M. M. J. Ros Sei. Tpoeh. 1983,20,825-836.

22. Bodner, 0.J Cham. Edue. 1991,68,385-388.
H.J. Chem. Edue 1987, M , 616-618.
23.FvrioMas.C. J.; Perez,J. H.; H-s,H
24. S t a w R.InL. J. Sei. Edue. 1988. 10.553-560.
25. N u m b e m , S . C.;Pickering,M. J Chem. Educ 1987,64,50&510.
26. Sawrey B. A. J. C h m . Educ. 1880,67,253-254.
27. Plckelulg,M. J C h m . Edue 1990.67.254-255.
28. Yarmch. W. L. J. Res, in Sei Boch. 1985.22.44%559.
. .
29. Ben-Zvi, R.: Eylon, B.: Silberofein, J.Educ, in Chem 1887. 117-120.
30.Andersson.B.Sci.Educ. 1986.70.549463.
31. De Vos, W.;Verdonk, A. H. J. Chcm. Educ. 1987.64.692-694.
32. Sfawidou, M.:Solomonidou, H.lnt. J. Sci. Educ. 1989,11,83-92.
33. De Vos, W: Verdonk, A, H.J Chem. Educ. 1988,63,972-974.

. .

57 Kozma, R. B.: Russell. J.: Johnston,J.: Derahimer C., Paper presented at the American Educational Researchkssociation, Boston, 1990.
38. Krsjet. J. S.: Layman, J. W., Paper pressnted at the National Assmiation of Re=arch in Science Teaching, Sari Francism, 1989.
39. Wker, M.; K i p m a . K, Paper presented at the American Edveational Research Association. New Orleans. 1988.
40. Linn. M. C.: Songer, N. B., Paper presented a t the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans. 1988.
J Sci. Educ. 1990,12,12b132.
41.Naehmiar. R.;Staw,R.:Avrsms,R.Int.
42.Etiekson.G.L. Sci. Educ. 1979.63.221-230.
43. Eriekron,G.L. Sci. E d v c 1980.64.323-336.