Volume 2, Issue 1, February 2014, Page: 11-19
Pedagogics of Chemical Bonding in Chemistry; Perspectives and Potential for Progress: The Case of Zimbabwe Secondary Education
Ephias Gudyanga, Department of Educational Foundations, Faculty of Education, Midlands State University, Gweru, Zimbabwe
Tawanda Madambi, Department of Educational Foundations, Faculty of Education, Midlands State University, Gweru, Zimbabwe
Received: Jan. 28, 2014;       Published: Feb. 28, 2014
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20140201.13      View  2695      Downloads  282
Abstract
In this study, the pedagogics of chemical bonding in Chemistry at Secondary school level, perspectives and potential for progress was investigated. The study was premised on the qualitative design methodology grounded and informed by the interpretive paradigm. It was guided by the constructivist theoretical framework acting as a lens through which we viewed our study. Eight (8) Bachelors degree holders, having taught chemistry at Advanced Level for at least 2 years, were purposively selected to comprise a sample of participants. Narrative interviews, followed by focus group discussions to validate the procedure, were carried out. Thematic approach data analysis from audio-taped -transcriptions-resulted in main themes and sub-themes being drawn out. It was found out that teachers teach for examination purposes, hence this followed a simplistic pedagogical approach resulting in misconceptions of chemical bonding being formed by learners. Rigid and dichotomous approach to ionic and covalent bonding, as outlined in textbooks and by teachers, forgetting its continuum scale, resulted in misconceptions in the understanding of chemical bonding. Teachers were found to be contributing factors by virtue of incompetence. Therefore use of learner centred pedagogical bottom-up approach was highlighted. Application of computer-assisted instruction on conceptual understanding of chemical bonding by competent teachers was inexorable.
Keywords
Pedagogics, Chemical Bonding, Misconceptions
To cite this article
Ephias Gudyanga, Tawanda Madambi, Pedagogics of Chemical Bonding in Chemistry; Perspectives and Potential for Progress: The Case of Zimbabwe Secondary Education, International Journal of Secondary Education. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014, pp. 11-19. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20140201.13
Reference
[1]
Bodner, G., & Domin, D. (1998). Mental models: The role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. International Council for Association in Science Education. Summer Symposium, Proceedings.
[2]
Gilbert, J. (2004). Models and Modelling: Routes to more authentic Science Education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 115-130.
[3]
Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade- 12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628.
[4]
Gudyanga, E., & Madambi, T. (2013). Misconceptions of Secondary school pupils on chemical structure and bonding. Midlands State University.
[5]
Levy, N. T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Kronik, L. (2008). A new "bottom-up" framework for teaching chemical bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 1680-1685.
[6]
Ross, B., & Munby, H. (1991). Concept mapping and misconceptions: A study of high -school students' understanding of acids and bases. International Journal of Science Education, 13(11), 1991-1999.
[7]
Taber, K. S. (2001). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learners' conceptions: A typology of learning impediments. Educational Studies, 27(2), 159-171.
[8]
Levy, N.T., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). Can final examinations amplify students' misconceptions in chemistry? Chemistry Education. Research and practice in Europe, 5(3), 301-325.
[9]
Hurst, O. (2002). How we teach molecular structure to freshmen. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 763-764.
[10]
Taber, K., & Coll, R. (2002). Chemical bonding education: Towards research-based practice: Dordrecht.
[11]
Taber, K. S. (2003). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 597-608. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 597-608.
[12]
Gabel, D. (1996). The complexity of chemistry: Research for teaching in the 21st century. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Chemical Education, Brisbane, Australia.
[13]
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98, 420-429.
[14]
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
[15]
Levy, N.T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Kronik, L. (2008). A new "bottom-up" framework for teaching chemical bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 1680-1685.
[16]
Robinson, W. R. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 978-982.
[17]
Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions-prevention, diagnosis and cure: Theoretical background (Vol. 1). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
[18]
Gilbert, J. (2003). Explaining with models. In M. Ratcliffe (Ed.), ASE Guide to Secondary Science Education. London: Stanley Thornes.
[19]
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Models and modeling in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. D. Jong, R. Justy, D. F. Treagust & J. H. v. Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47-68).
[20]
Van Driel, J. H. (1998). Teachers’ knowledge about the nature of models and modeling in science. San Diego: National Association for Research in Science Education.
[21]
Bhushan, N., & Rosenfeld, S. (1998). Metaphorical models in chemistry. Washington D.C The World Bank.
[22]
Schmidt, H. J. (1995). Applying the concept of conjugation of the Bronsted theory of acid-basreactions by senior high school students from Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 733-742.
[23]
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. New York: Stte University of New York Press.
[24]
Driver, R., & Easly, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
[25]
Stinner, A. (1995). Science textbooks: Their present role and future form. Learning science in the schools.
[26]
Sutton, C. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 1-18.
[27]
Yifrach, M. (1999). Definition of chemical literacy and assessment of its attainment in high school chemistry. Rehovot: Weizmann Institute of Science.
[28]
Bruner, J. (1966). Developmental Psychology. Michigan. University of Michigan
[29]
Banks, M. (2007). Using Visual Data in Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications
[30]
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (2 nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
[31]
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
[32]
Strydom, H. (2002). Ethical aspects of research in the caring professions. In A. S. DeVos (Ed.), Research at grassroots: For the social sciences and human service professions. Pretoria: Van Publishersan Schaik.
[33]
Jenninings, G. R. (2005). Interviewing: A Focus on QualitativeTechniques. In R. Ritchie, P. Burns & C. Palma (Eds.), Tourism Research Methods: Intergrating Theory with Practice. Wallingford: CABI Publishers.
[34]
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry. In J. Green, G. Camilli & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 375-385.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[35]
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry: Theory into Practice. (3), 124-130. doi:DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
[36]
Bloom, B.S. (1954). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon.
[37]
Henderleiter, J., Smart, R., Anderson, J., & Elian, O. (2001). How do organic chemistry students understand and apply hydrogen bonding? Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1126-1130.
[38]
Ashkenazi, G., & Kosloff, R. (2006). The uncertainity principle and covalent bonding Chemical Educator, 11, 66-76.
[39]
Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597-608.
[40]
Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children's science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623-633.
[41]
Duit, R. (1996). Conceptions of high school students concerning the internal structure of metals and their electric conduction: structure and evolution. Science Education, 81, 445-467.
[42]
Akwee, P. E. (2010). Integration of Computer-based technology in teaching and learning of gene concept in Secondary schools of Kakamega Central District, Kenya. Masinde Muliro University.Kakamega. Kenya.
[43]
Hofstein, A., Kesner, M., & Frailichi, M. (2009). Understanding oc chemical bonding by using activities on an Interactive Website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 289-310.
[44]
Ozmen, H. (2008). The influence of Computer Assisted Instruction on students' conceptual understanding of chemical bonding and attitude toward Chemistry: A case of Turkey. Computers and Education, 51(1), 423-438.
[45]
Windschilt, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Jounal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 145-160.
[46]
Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to cognition: Educational Psychology Initiative. Valdosta: Valdosta State University.
[47]
Morgil, I., Oskay, O., Yavuz, S., & Ard, S. (2003). The factors that affect Computer Assisted Education Implementation in the Chemistry Education and comparison of traditional and Computer Assisted Education Methods in Redox subject. The Turkish Online Journal of Education Technology, 2(4).
[48]
Ben-Zvi, R., Elyon, B. S., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Student's visualisation of Chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117-120.
[49]
Linn, M. C. (1992). Science Education Reform: Building the Research Base. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 821-840.
[50]
Mulavu, W. G. (2011). Effect of using molecular models on students' understanding of structure and chemical bonding in Kenyan Public Secondary schools. Masinde Mulilo University. Kakamega. Kenya.
[51]
Capri, A. (2001). Improvements in undergraduate science education using web-based instructional modules: The natural science pages. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1709-1712.
[52]
Clark, D. (2004). Hands-on investigation in Internet environments: teaching thermal equilibrium. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 175-200). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
[53]
Kozma, R., & Russel, J. (2005). Modelling students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert. (Ed.), Visualisation in science education. Dordrecht: Academic Publishers.
[54]
Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Education, 37, 459-479.
[55]
Frailichi, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2009). Enhancing students' understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Education, 46(3), 289-310.
Browse journals by subject