EXAMINATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ CONCEPTIONS ABOUT METALLIC BONDING AND PROPERTIES OF METALS

Abstract

This study examines secondary school students’ conceptions about metallic bonding and properties of metals by using a diagnostic instrument. The diagnostic instrument titled “iron” was designed to test out student understanding of the basic notion of metallic bonding and the relation between the properties of particles and bulk properties by Taber (2002). In the present study, a translated version of the true/false diagnostic instrument which contains 20 questions was administered to 942 students who are attending at 10th grades (374 students), 11th grade (333 students), and 12th grade (235 students) from different secondary schools. At the end of the study, it was found that the students had the octet rule alternative framework. They apply the full outer shells explanatory principle to explain metallic structure. It was concluded that students have alternative conceptions about the relationship between the properties of metal atoms and the properties of the metallic structure. For example, most of the students think “iron conducts electricity because iron atoms are electrical conductors” and “the reason iron rusts is that iron atoms will rust if exposed to damp air”.

Keywords

• Metallic bonding,secondary school students,metallic properties

References

1. Ben-Zyi, R., Eylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64–66. Cheng, M.M.W., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). Students' visualization of metallic bonding and the malleability of metals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1373-1407. Coll, R.K., & Taylor, N. (2002). Mental models in chemistry: Senior chemistry students’ mental models of chemical bonding. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 175-184. Coll, R.K., & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Learners’ mental models of metallic bonding: A cross-Age study. Science Education, 87, 685-707. Coll, R.K. (2008). Chemistry learners’ preferred mental models for chemical bonding. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(1), 22-47. Gay L. R., & Airasion P. (2000). Educational research: competencies for analysis and application. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glazar, S. A. (1998). Survey of research related to the development of the concept of ‘matter’. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 257–289. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196. Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions- prevention, diagnosis and cure, Volume II: classroom resources. London: The Royal Society of Chemistry. Taber, K.S. (2003). Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learners’ Prior learning. Science Education, 87, 732-758.