Quim. Nova, Vol. 28, No.

2, 335-336, 2005

DO GENERAL CHEMISTRY TEXTBOOKS FACILITATE CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING?#

Divulgação
Mansoor Niaz
Departamento de Química, Universidad de Oriente, Apartado Postal 90, Cumaná, Estado Sucre, Venezuela

Recebido em 14/9/04; publicadao na web em 28/1/05

Research in chemistry education has recognized the need for facilitating students’ understanding of different concepts. In contrast,
most general chemistry curricula and textbooks not only ignore the context in which science progresses but also emphasize rote
learning and algorithmic strategies. A historical reconstruction of scientific progress shows that it inevitably leads to controversy
and debate, which can arouse students’ interest and thus facilitate understanding. The objective of this article is to review research
related to the evaluation of general chemistry textbooks (based on history and philosophy of science, HPS) and suggest alternatives
that can facilitate conceptual understanding.

Keywords: general chemistry textbooks; conceptual understanding; history and philosophy of science.

Recent research in science education has recognized not only Were cathode rays ions or a universal charged particle?
the importance of history and philosophy of science but also its
implications for science textbooks1. Most teachers in different parts Thomson3 measured mass to charge ratio in order to identify
of the world rely quite heavily on the textbook, as perhaps the only cathode rays as ions (if the ratio was not constant) or as a universal
source of information. In the case of chemistry most students at the charged particle (constant ratio). Of the 23 textbooks (all published
secondary and freshman level think that they do not have to understand in U.S.A.) analyzed only 2 described satisfactorily the reason why
chemistry but rather memorize the different concepts. Thus, it is not Thomson decided to measure the charge to mass ratio4. Following is
difficult to appreciate why students do not like chemistry. an example of a textbook that had a satisfactory presentation:
Nevertheless, the interesting point is that many freshman general A very striking and important observation made by Thomson is
chemistry courses and textbooks present material that does not call that the e/m [charge to mass] ratio does not depend on the gas
for much conceptual understanding. Taking atomic structure as an inside the tube or the metal used for the cathode or anode. The
example, it is plausible to suggest that an evaluation of textbooks fact that the e/m ratio is the same whatever gas is present in the
(all published in U.S.A.) based on criteria derived from a history and tube proves that the cathode ray does not consist of gaseous
philosophy of science perspective can provide teachers with insight ions, for it did, e/m would depend on the nature of the gas5.
as to how atomic models or theories developed. Let us now observe how another textbook dealt with this important
issue:
Heuristic principles A physicist in England named J. J. Thomson showed in the
late 1890s that the atoms of any element can be made to emit
According to Schwab2 scientific inquiry tends to look for patterns tiny negative particles. (He knew they had a negative charge
of change and relationship, which constitute the heuristic because he could show that they were repelled by the negative
(explanatory) principles of our knowledge. A fresh line of scientific part of an electric field). Thus he concluded that all types of
research has its origins not in objective facts alone but in a conception, atoms must contain these negative particles, which are now
a deliberate construction of the mind - a heuristic principle. This called electrons6.
tells us what facts to look for in the research and what meaning to This example constitutes what Schwab2 has referred to as a
assign. Chemistry textbooks and curricula have ignored Schwab’s ‘rhetoric of conclusions’, viz., ‘they were repelled by the negative
advice, which leads to a lack of an epistemological distinction between part of an electric field’ leads to the conclusion that ‘all types of
the methodological (experimental) and interpretative (heuristic) atoms must contain these negative particles’. It is interesting to ob-
components. After almost four decades we still have to agree with serve that the textbook makes no effort to connect the experimental
Schwab2 that in most parts of the world, chemistry is taught as an: observation (repelled by the negative part of an electric field) with
… unmitigated rhetoric of conclusions in which the current and the conclusion (all types of atoms must contain these negative
temporary constructions of scientific knowledge are conveyed as particles). In the absence of any logical step that could connect the
empirical, literal, and irrevocable truths … A rhetoric of two (i.e., observation and conclusion) , students are forced to simply
conclusions, then, is a structure of discourse which persuades men memorize. It is concluded that the presentation by Segal5 provides a
to accept the tentative as certain, the doubtful as the undoubted, better opportunity for students to think and thus facilitates conceptual
by making no mention of reasons or evidence for what it asserts, understanding.
as if to say, ‘This everyone of importance knows to be true’2.
Interpretation of alpha particle experiments
*e-mail: niazma@[Link]
#
Parcialmente basado en la Conferencia Plenaria, XXVI Congreso In order to maintain his model of the atom and explain large
Latinoamericano de Química y 27 Reunión Anual de Sociedade Brasileira angle deflections of alpha particles, J. J. Thomson had put forward
de Química (SBQ), Salvador, Bahia, Brasil, 30 Mayo al 2 Junio, 2004. the hypothesis of compound scattering (multitude of small scattering).
336 Niaz Quim. Nova

On the other hand, Rutherford7 explained the experiment by the proposed a model for the hydrogen atom that accounted for its
hypothesis of single scattering. The two hypotheses based on the spectrum. The Bohr model assumed that the negatively charged
same experimental results led to two entirely different atomic models electron and the positively charged nucleus of a hydrogen atom
and to a bitter dispute between Thomson and Rutherford. Of the 23 were held together by the force of attraction between oppositely
textbooks analyzed 4 none described the controversy between charged particles13.
Thomson and Rutherford and the fact that experimental data often Students who follow this textbook may come to the conclusion
lead to more than one model/interpretation. Inclusion of this aspect that Bohr’s model had no inconsistencies and his contemporaries
of nature of science can facilitate students’ conceptual understanding. accepted it without any arguments or controversies. This presentation
A recent textbook deals with this issue in the following terms: is indeed a very ‘sterilized’ version of scientific progress and deprives
The only way to account for the observations [deflection of students of historical details that can help to arouse their curiosity,
alpha particles] was to conclude that all of the positive charge interest and conceptual understanding.
and most of the mass of the atom are concentrated in a very
small region8. CONCLUSION
This makes interesting reading in retrospect, as it distorts
historical facts. Thomson considered to be the ‘world master in the Most of the general chemistry textbooks seem to emphasize ex-
design of atomic models’ did not agree with Rutherford’s perimental details based on observations and generally ignore the
interpretation and the controversy between the two lasted for many ‘heuristic principles’2, that led the scientists in the first place to design
years and is well recorded in the history of science9. Textbook authors their experiments and facilitated greater conceptual understanding11.
could easily use this example to show that interpretation of empirical Besides atomic structure, a review of the literature shows that
data is difficult even for those scientists working in cutting-edge ex- textbooks follow the same approach in many other topics, such as:
perimental work, and thus students must be aware that doing and determination of the elementary electrical charge14, kinetic theory15,
understanding an experiment are two different facets of scientific origin of the covalent bond 16 , laws of definite and multiple
development. proportions17 and the periodic table18. It is suggested that chemistry
teachers can facilitate greater conceptual understanding by
Bohr’s incorporation of Planck’s ‘quantum of action’: a incorporating historical episodes that form part of the curriculum
contradictory graft and at the same time illustrate that progress in science inevitably
leads to discussions, arguments and controversies. Hopefully, this
Bohr’s10 incorporation of Planck’s ‘quantum of action’ to the approach may provide students evidence to the effect that science is
classical electrodynamics of Maxwell, represented a strange ‘mixture’ tentative and that much remains to be done and hence they can also
for many of Bohr’s contemporaries and philosophers of science. This participate in this human endeavor.
episode illustrates how scientists, when faced with difficulties, often
resort to contradictory ‘grafts’, for which there is little justification REFERENCES
on logical grounds. Of the 23 textbooks analyzed4 only two described
satisfactorily Bohr’s dilemma and the following is an example: 1. Matthews, M. R.; Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of
There are two ways of proposing a new theory in science, and science, Routledge: New York, 1994.
2. Schwab, J. J.; The teaching of science as enquiry, Harvard University Press:
Bohr’s work illustrates the less obvious one. One way is to amass Cambridge, 1962.
such an amount of data that the new theory becomes obvious 3. Thomson, J. J.; Philos. Mag. 1897, 44, 293.
and self-evident to any observer. The theory then is almost a 4. Niaz, M.; Science Education 1998, 82, 527.
summary of the data. The other way is to make a bold new 5. Segal, B.G.; Chemistry: Experiment and theory, 2nd ed., Wiley: New York,
1989.
assertion that initially does not seem to follow from the data,
6. Zumdahl, S. S.; Introductory chemistry: A foundation, Heath: Lexington,
and then to demonstrate that the consequences of this assertion, MA, 1990.
when worked out, explain many observations. With this method, 7. Rutherford, E.; Philos. Mag. 1911, 21, 669.
a theorist says, ‘You may not see why, yet, but please suspend 8. Moore, J. W.; Stanitski, C. L.; Jurs, P. C.; Chemistry: The Molecular
judgment on my hypothesis [cf. hard core11] until I show you Science, Harcourt College: Philadelphia, PA, 2002.
9. Wilson, D.; Rutherford: Simple genius, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1983.
what I can do with it’. Bohr’s theory is of this type. Bohr said to 10. Bohr, N.; Philos. Mag. 1913, 26, 1.
classical physicists, ‘You have been misled by your physics to 11. Lakatos, I. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge; Lakatos, I.;
expect that the electron would radiate energy and spiral into the Musgrave, A., eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1970,
nucleus. Let us assume that it does not, and see if we can account p. 91-195.
12. Dickerson, R. E.; Gray, H. B.; Darensbourg, M. Y.; Darensbourg, D. J.;
for more observations than by assuming that it does’12.
Chemical principles, 4th ed., Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park, CA, 1984.
This detailed presentation of Bohr’s dilemma may seem surprising 13. Spencer, J. N.; Bodner, G. M.; Rickard, L. H.; Chemistry: Structure and
to some chemistry teachers and students, and still it illustrates how Dynamics, Wiley: New York, 1999.
scientists at times have to resort to ‘heuristic principles’ for which 14. Niaz, M.: Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2000, 37, 480.
they can provide little justification. Let us now compare this 15. Niaz, M.; Instructional Science 2000, 28, 23.
16. Niaz, M.; International Journal of Science Education 2001, 23, 623.
presentation with that of a recent textbook: 17. Niaz, M.; Science and Education 2001, 10, 243.
Although Rutherford was never able to incorporate electrons 18. Brito, A.; Rodríguez, M.; Niaz, M.; Journal of Research in Science
into his model of the atom, one of his students, Niels Bohr, Teaching 2005, 42, 84.