Your views are welcomed upon the theme of

Teaching chemistry without

(too much emphasis on)

atoms?
a

Royal Society of Chemistry Teacher Fellowship

discussion paper

Keith S. Taber
Homerton College, University of Cambridge & The Royal Society of Chemistry

This paper is circulated to colleagues who have expressed an interest in the RSC Teacher Fellowship project on
Challenging Misconceptions in the Classroom. The purpose of the paper is to encourage critical reflection, and
to provoke responses about an aspect of teaching chemistry which may be significant for the way learners' ideas
develop in the subject.

Version 1/October 2000

Keith S. Taber © October 2000

The Royal Society of Chemistry funds Teacher Fellowships to support the development of educational materials
for science/chemistry teaching. The Fellowship brief for 2000/1 is the to identify and challenge common
misconceptions that research suggests are found among secondary pupils and college students.

The Teacher Fellow is to produce a resource for teachers which provides a general background on the research
into alternative conceptions in chemistry, and which provides specific classroom materials with supporting
documentation. The classroom materials and teachers' notes will - as far as possible - be informed by the
comments of practitioners. This paper is produced as part of that process of inviting comment from colleagues.

All comments and responses are welcome, and should be addressed to:
 Dr. K. S. Taber
RSC Teacher Fellow
Science & Technology Group
Institute of Education
University of London
20 Bedford Way
London WC1H 0AL

Introduction: alternative conceptions.

A vast body of research shows that learners' errors in their work in chemistry (and other science subjects) are not
always due to simply not learning or forgetting work, or being confused. Sometimes - not always, but often -
pupils and students have learnt alternative versions of the subject matter that do not match the accepted science
curriculum.

Of course, this means that they have got the work wrong! However, in order to help pupils who such
misconceptions, or alternative conceptions, move their ideas on it is important to realise that:

� often (although not always) learners' alternative conceptions seem to

make good sense to them;

� often (although not always) learners' alternative conceptions may be

quite stable, as they are well established;

� often (although not always) a learner's alternative conceptions may be

integrated into a quite complex conceptual framework which acts as a
relatively self-consistent (and mutually supporting) whole;

� often (although not always) learners ideas derive from interpreting

tuition through their existing conceptual frameworks - they believe that
their conceptions are what the teacher said, or what they read in a text book
etc., and they do not realise that their ideas are 'alternative'.

Research suggests that simply marking work wrong, and providing the 'correction' is unlikely to be enough to
help pupils change their ideas in such cases.

How to challenge alternative conceptions, and how (sometimes) not to have to.

In these cases the teacher has to give learners good reasons to see why they are wrong and why they should
adopt a new view.

Of course, some learners are so motivated to get good marks, or pass tests, that they can be relied upon to
independently follow up wrong answers until they feel they have mastered the scientific model that is required in
right answers. However, we probably all know many learners for whom this would not apply!

There is research which looks at how to persuade learners to change their conceptions (and of course this not
entirely under conscious control - or else it would simply be a matter of will), and which has tried to apply these
ideas in science classrooms. Although this work is important, this paper is focused on a different issue.

Research suggests that some alternative conceptions in chemistry may be due to the way the subject is taught.

This is not to criticise teachers per se, but to suggest that the traditional approaches, orders of presenting ideas,
the analogies/metaphors/models/simplifications often used, etc., may sometimes actually encourage learners to
'get the wrong idea'. (Perhaps some teachers also teach things that are actually wrong - but that is another issue.
Here I am concerned with the possibility that teachers are presenting material that is basically valid, but which is
interpreted differently by learners.)

It is not difficult to see how this could happen when one considers (a) the vast difference between the depth and
sophistication in the levels of knowledge and understanding of teachers and many learners, and (b) the nature of
chemistry as a subject that is largely based on theoretical models and concepts: many largely conceptualised in
terms of unobservables.

If this suggestion is correct, then it may be possible to reduce the incidence of certain common misconceptions
by trying to prevent their development rather that by trying to change learners minds after the event.

This is the perspective that this paper asks you to consider, in relation to what is often seen as a key idea in
chemistry.

Atoms.

This paper asks you to consider a concept which seems to have a large significance in chemistry - the atom.

Some commentators have suggested that teaching about atoms and molecules too early can be
counterproductive, and should be delayed until more molar level chemistry is understood. This is an interesting
point of view, but is not what this paper is about. In this paper I am assuming that we will continue to use
molecular level definitions and models as part of the explanatory apparatus that underpins our chemistry
teaching.

The argument here is that the (specific) concept of atom has been over-emphasised in chemistry.

In other words I do not think atoms are very important in chemistry. (Please, remember, this is a discussion
paper - so responses are welcome!) Yet the way chemistry is currently taught, the atom seems to be presented as
a very central concept.

The atom is important as a kind of iconic motif for the subject - something that seems to enter the collective
subconscious as a useful 'symbol' of chemistry.

I would like to suggest that when experienced chemists/chemistry teachers think about atoms, they use the atom
concept as a useful mental tool which helps them conceptualise molecular level systems. They use their mental
models of atoms like atomic building bricks in constructing their mental models of other molecular level
systems.

However, I believe, when we teach about chemistry we usually present the atom as if it is the building brick of
molecular level systems. (i.e.: molecules are made of atoms, a water molecule is one oxygen atom joined to two
hydrogen atoms, an ion is a charged atom...) Learners pick up on this and develop a 'chemical ontology' based on
the atom: their understanding of what chemists believe is in the world starts with the atom.

In my view this 'atomic ontology':

(a) does not model nature very well, and (more significantly)

(b) channels learners' thinking in ways which work against desired

conceptual development.

I suggest that the two 'causes' of this problem are:

(a) the traditional conceptualisation of the subject derives from a time

when the molecular level of analysis was new, and has not developed to
 keep pace with scientific understanding (our pedagogy is based in the first
decades of the 20th C.);

(b) the greater familiarity of 'experts' (teachers etc.) with molecular level
systems allows them to operate with the notion of 'atom as building brick',
without falling into the pitfalls that face novices - in other words many of
the mistakes that learners make seem silly to experts, but may seem
perfectly sensible to the learners themselves.

The atomic ontology.

This is a version of 'particle theory' based on the atom as the primary concept. I am sure many readers will find
it quite familiar.

1. Everything is made of tiny particles called atoms.

1a. Atoms are the basic building blocks of matter.

1b. Atoms comprise of a positive nucleus surrounded by one or more negative electrons.

1c. The nucleus comprises of one or more positive protons plus (usually) a number of neutral neutrons.

1d. Atoms are neutral as the number of electrons balances the number of protons in the nucleus.

2. A molecule is a group of atoms bonded together.

3. An ion is an atom or molecule which has gained or lost electrons.

etc.

The atom is seen as the primary, fundamental unit - even thought it is acknowledged that it is not actually
fundamental in the sense of being indivisible (atomos), as it is made up of smaller parts (see figure 1). This
might seem clear enough: but self-contradictory student comments along the lines of 'the smallest particle of
matter is the atom: it is made up of...' are common-place. Other entities are seen as groups of atoms (molecules,
metal structures) or altered atoms (ions).

Pedagogic pitfalls of the atomic ontology.

I am sure that I taught chemistry according to this approach, which I consider to be almost paradigmatic. Indeed
I never really started questioning this way of looking at chemical species until I undertook research into learners'
ideas about chemistry (and in particular, bonding). Only when I tried to make sense of some of the conceptions I
elicited in my research did I come to realise how dubious this ontology is from both scientific and pedagogic
perspectives.
 Figure 1: an atomic ontology

From a scientific perspective, the atom does not offer much claim to being a basic unit. At the school level the
appropriate zoo of fundamental particles are surely the proton, the neutron and the electron (although some
awareness of quarks may be appropriate to those also taking physics at A level or equivalent).

The priority of atoms would seem to be a product of the human mind rather than nature. In our normal
environment (i.e. the surface of the earth, at temperatures that are usually below about 350K), there are very few
substances which are found as 'atoms'. The noble gases are found as discrete atoms (or at least very close
approximations, if minor perturbations of the pure atomic structures are ignored). This means half a dozen of the
elements exist as atoms: the rest are normally found as (diatomic or polyatomic) molecules or in metallic
lattices. Most substances found in our environmental are not elements but compounds, and obviously none of
these are found as atoms - they all exist as molecules, ions etc. So in terms of 'what we find around us' the atom
is not a good choice of base concept.

One can certainly consider other conditions, where temperatures are high enough for molecules/metallic
lattices/ionic lattices to be unstable, but low enough for atoms to be stable. I am not sure to what extent one
could give a single set of conditions where most molecules/metallic lattices/ionic lattices would be thermally
unstable, whilst atoms were still thermally stable: but even if such a set of conditions exist, it would not reflect
out normal environment, and would in that sense be an arbitrary choice. A little colder than this and most
discrete atoms cease to exist: a little warmer and they start to thermally decompose.

The choice of the atom as our mental starting point for conceptualising the molecular world does not reflect any
'preference' we find in nature. It is purely a conceptual convenience. It is useful to have the atom as a starting
point and see ions as atoms that have lost or gained electrons (even though we find many more ions in the world
than atoms). Molecules may be seen as atoms that have joined together: even thought there are many more
molecules around than atoms.

All of this, however, would amount to nothing more than a pedantic point if did not cause problems.

Among the ideas I have met in my research, which I think are related to notions of the primacy of atoms, are:

� when bonds break the electrons go back to their original atoms: as the atom is seen as a special unit, electrons
are considered to belong to particular atoms. Although electrons may be 'shared' when bonds form, the atoms get
their own electrons back when the bond breaks. This idea is clearly related to a lack of application of basic
electrostatic principles in molecular systems when learners perceive something else other than physical forces
involved in bonds, reactions etc. One possible consequence of this is that bond fission is assumed to be
heterogeneous, as homogenous bond fission involves an electron ending up on the 'wrong' atom. (Something that
students tell me would be somewhat odd!) Of course, in a molecule some of the valence electrons may be
considered to be 'atomic' in that they occupy orbitals not greatly different from those in the atom: but other
('bonding') electrons occupy molecular orbitals that are very different to the atomic orbitals from which they are
considered to be derived. Note that for learners who think of molecules as simply atoms joined together, the
electrons in the bond are not considered as electrons in a molecular system, but as electrons that belong to one
atom or the other. (Perhaps our 'dot and cross' type diagrams help encourage this, suggesting that there is
something different about the electrons from different atoms.)

� when precipitation (double decomposition) reactions occur, the electrons in the ions that are in the wrong
atoms are switched back to the original atoms, before a new 'electron transfer' can occur. i.e. consider:

AgNO3 (aq) + NaCl (aq) ® NaNO3(aq) + AgCl(s) �

I have been told that there is an ionic bond in silver chloride because electrons have been transferred from silver
atoms to chlorine atoms. There was a bond in silver nitrate wherever an electron had been transferred from a
silver atom to a nitrate atom, and in sodium chloride wherever an electron had been transferred from a sodium
atom to a chloride atom. Before the new ionic bonds can form the electrons have to be returned (i.e. the silver
ion has to get its electron back from the nitrate so it can give it to the chlorine which has returned the sodium's
electron!) Again the electrostatic nature of the bond is not appreciated because the ionic bond is identified with
acts of electron transfer between atomic donors and receivers. For many learners there can not simply be an
ionic bond in the silver chloride precipitate because the cations and anions attract each other: they have learnt a
definition of the ionic bond closely tied to the act of electron transfer between metal and non-metal atoms.

The paradigmatic case here is NaCl where the bond is often 'explained' in terms of electron transfer between Na
and Cl atoms (species which are most unlikely to be the starting point for any NaCl produced!) Apart from the
confusion caused when learners then consider how the ions might form bonds with other counter-ions (as in the
example above), this also leads to a model of the ionic crystal with ion-pairs considered as pseudo-molecules. As
each sodium and chlorine atom can only form one bond by this hypothetical process of electron transfer each ion
is only actually bonded to one other, and the resulting ion pairs are held in the lattice by some additional 'other'
force (often considered to be 'just' a force, whereas the real ionic bond is seen as something more than just a
force).

� Perhaps one of the most pervasive aspects of the atomic ontology is its connection with the 'octet' mentality
for explaining chemical processes. It is common for learners to 'explain' why sodium would react with chlorine
in terms of the scheme criticised above: by arguing that the discrete sodium and chlorine atoms 'need' full outer
shells, or octets, or noble gas electronic structures, and therefore form ions. Apart from ignoring the energetic
balance sheet for the processes described (the ionisation of sodium requires more energy than is released by the
electron affinity of chlorine), this whole scheme is justified in terms of atoms needing electronic configurations:
when in any real reaction between sodium and chlorine the reacting species would be in a form where these
configurations have been achieved.
This 'assumption of initial atomicity' becomes even clearer when learners are asked about reactions to form
products which have (basically) covalent bonds. So the reaction between hydrogen and fluorine will be
explained in terms of the hydrogen atom and fluorine atoms needing full outer shells: even when the equation H2
+ F2 ® 2HF is given! This is not (generally) because learners do not understand what the subscripts mean in the
molecular formulae: but they have just been trained to assume that in chemistry we start with atoms.

Teachers are not doing anything radical here: there are many text books which show diagrams of chemical
reactions in terms of discrete atoms interacting to form ions or molecules. For example, I have seen a molecule
of methane shown as produced from one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms (not two hydrogen molecules
note, but four atoms) without there apparently being any need felt to explain where these atoms came from. This
gives the impression that atoms of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, sodium, chlorine etc. are ambient - just around,
ready to react at the chemist's whim. I am going to suggest that rather than always starting from atoms, we
should seldom mention them!

An alternative chemical ontology.

Clearly it is easier to criticise the faults in the way we do things, than to suggest a viable alternative. However, I
do think we should look to conceptualise molecular systems differently. Perhaps one of the greatest advantages
of the 'atomic ontology' (figure 1) is that it provides a single starting point, from which we can build up (e.g.
atom to molecule) or focus down (e.g. atom to electrons plus nucleus).

I can not suggest a simple catch-all replacement for 'everything is made of tiny particles called atoms'. Yet, as
very few things are actually made from atoms, I see this as an unfair standard. It may be simple, and
psychologically comfortable - but it is not correct or helpful.

An ontology that better reflects the scientific 'atomic' model, and which may be a less misleading pedagogic
tool, is presented in figure 2.
 Figure 2: an alternative chemical ontology

This seems more complex, and does not have a single focus, or even a obvious basic level of analysis, but I
would suggest it is a better reflection of our understanding of the structure of matter. 'Atom' appears with
'molecule' and 'ion' and each of these terms reflects an arrangement of one of more cores and valency electrons.
Atoms are not seen as being any more fundamental than molecules or ions.

Virtually everything may be considered to be made of cores + electrons: whereas very few materials of interest
may genuinely be seen to be made of atoms (and those that are could just as well be considered to be made up
from (monatomic) molecules).

An important aspect of this approach is that it is not the atoms which are considered as the basic entities which
'undergo chemistry' (leading to notions of reactants being in the form of atoms, and of atoms existing in
molecules) but cores and valence electrons. To a good approximation, most chemical reactions involve the re-
configurations of a relatively stable set of atomic cores and associated valency electrons. Atomic cores (nuclei
plus inner shells of electrons) are largely unperturbed in most chemical processes, and along with valence
electrons may be considered the building blocks of matter as far as chemists are concerned. Under the atomic
ontology atoms may be considered to be re-arranged in chemical processes: when they are seldom involved as
either reactants of products.

In this alternative scheme core electrons are seen to be part of a relative stable entity, and only to be dislodged
under exceptional circumstances, but valence electrons are seen as relatively free agents, that may fairly readily
move about when chemical reactions occur.

Advantages of the alternative ontology.

Teaching using something like figure 2 as the basis for discussing chemistry at the molecular level would have a
number of advantages in terms of helping learners to avoid common mistakes. In particular, it would help
prevent learners making an 'assumption of atomicity' about reactants that are actually found as molecules, ions
or metallic lattices. If learners recognised that - for example - the reactants when methane burns in oxygen are
molecular, then they would not mistakenly try to explain the reaction in terms of the need of the discrete atoms
to obtain full outer shells. Learners would not see bond fission in terms of atoms taking away their own electrons
but would realise that the bonding electrons were part of a molecule, not of specific atoms. Learners would not
see a need for ions to discharge to the 'original' atoms before undertaking new electron transfers to form new
ionic bonds.

Much of chemistry can be explained at the molecular level in terms of a simple electrical model (albeit one
constrained by the restrictions of quantisation), and the formation and fission of bonds involved in chemical
changes can be sensible rationalised in terms of electrical forces. This may not be a complete explanation, but it
is an authentic. Yet learners often lack this perspective and give their explanations in terms of the needs and
desires of individual atoms. The primacy of the atom in our conceptual schemes (e.g. figure 1) is picked up by
learners who lacking the experts depth of understanding interpret chemistry as a kind of atomic soap opera.

Although teachers may well recognise that the atom is just a useful place to start talking about systems which are
mostly more complicated (than a single nucleus and a balancing number of electrons), we are so used to this way
of thinking that we accept without note of criticism text book diagrams 'explaining' covalent and ionic bonding
in terms of the interactions of discrete atoms, and which imply to learners that chemical reactions occur so that
the atoms can get the number of electrons they 'want'.

My belief is that the restructuring of our conceptual map from figure 1 to something more like figure 2 would
mean:

� teaching a more authentic and valid model;

� avoid learners developing a range of common alternative misconceptions

� provide a suitable basis for developing an explanatory scheme which is based on

physical interactions rather than mystical or anthropomorphic principles.

Disadvantages of the alternative ontology.

Clearly if I am right, and figure 1 represents both a poor conceptualisation of the science, and a poor pedagogic
tool, then it would seem strange that so much of our traditional teaching seems to imply this view of the
molecular world.

I can suggest two reasons why we tend to teach about molecular systems using the ontology of figure 1.

The first reason is historical. The atom is a Bachelardian impediment. At the end of the nineteenth century the
atom was still a hypothetical mental tool that was considered by many scientists to be more a useful heuristic
device than a reflection of the reality of nature. In the first few decades of the twentieth century the reality of
atoms became accepted. Of course much of this work was done by physicists, for whom atomic systems are
often considered primarily as nuclides which happen to be surrounded by a 'cloud' of electrons. Rutherford
(Geiger-Marsden)'s critical experiment on atomic structure was basically an experiment where helium nuclei
were fired at gold, and some of the helium nuclei interacted with gold nuclei: the electrons were effectively
invisible! For the purposes of this breakthrough it was completely irrelevant whether the electrons were around
specific atoms, in molecular arrangements or in a delocalised 'sea'. yet this experiment is often described as
concerned with 'atomic' structure.

Within chemistry the original idea of atoms from Democritus had been revived by Dalton's work, and this led to
a conception of atoms as building block that were immutable in themselves but which were rearranged into
different configurations to give the various substances in the world. As science uncovered more about the
structure of the atom, and about electronic orbitals in atoms, molecules, metallic lattices etc., the survival of the
term atom carried with it much of the pre-existing 'baggage' of immutable building blocks.

Habits of thought can be the most difficult to break!

The second reason is that the scheme in figure 1 does have a clear advantage. It is relatively simple to learn. It
has a single starting point (the atom). It provides a simple language for discussing molecules (several atoms
stuck together), ions (atoms that have lost or gained electrons) etc. It is simple enough to be taught and readily
tested. Figure 2 represents something more complex and vague: electrons must be considered as either part of
relatively immutable cores, or as more labile valency electrons; there is no key single concept (the nearest we get
is the duality of cores and valency electrons).

Perhaps figure 2 is too complicated. Perhaps it just seems that way when we are so used to chemistry being
discussed as though figure 1 reflects molecular reality. Perhaps figure 2 (or something based on it) would seem
less complicated to a learner not familiar with the scheme of figure 1 than it does to those of us used to thinking
in terms of atoms. Perhaps in this post-modern world where children's TV typically involves moving cameras,
several set of scrolling subtitles, several presenters talking at once and quick edits between camera shots, it is the
simplicity of figure 1 which is out of step with young people's expectations of the world. After all, who is to say
we should expect simplicity?

Conclusion.

A discussion paper should not really have a conclusion, but I would like to end with a brief summary of points.
Although I have taught across the secondary age range much of my teaching experience was at college level, and
so I recognise that my perspective is driven by seeing many college students stumble over conceptual obstacles
deriving from the way they had been taught about chemistry at school. Perhaps my concerns seem rather
pedantic and elitist. Perhaps most secondary pupils need a model simple enough to understand and learn for
exams.: they are never going to use ideas about the molecular world in any deep sense. Perhaps figure 1
represents something simple enough to teach and test at school level. Perhaps we have to accept that the small
number of pupils who go on to use chemistry at any higher level may just have to develop their ideas at the
appropriate time.

I hope this is not our position. The molecular model of the world is one of the main scientific achievements: a
scheme with enormous explanatory power. Surely we teach it to all our pupils because it is a key part of our
culture, and a prime example of what science is about: developing robust models that can be used to explain and
predict. If this is so, then I think we have a duty to provide a scheme which actually reflects current scientific
thinking and is powerful enough to actually explain the chemistry pupils study. One aspect of this is why
chemical processes occur: something that I do not think we teach in any real sense in (most) schools. Yet this is a
real question for pupils, as most come to their own conclusions about it (i.e. chemical reactions occur to allow
atoms to get full outer shells!) The explanations pupils give are invalid, but are only possible because of the
atomic ontology that has them think of chemical processes in terms of interacting discrete atoms.

I think we should outlaw textbooks which 'explain' chemistry in terms of diagrams showing discrete atoms
interacting to form molecules and ions. If a more realistic model of matter (based on figure 2) and of chemical
change (based on electrical interactions) can not be taught in a valid way so that most secondary pupils can
understand: then perhaps we should not teach about the molecular level at all. If our chemistry would be too
impoverished without the molecular level (and perhaps lose its place in secondary curricula), then we have to
find a way to teach it where learners can develop conceptions that are scientifically valid, even if simplified and
not complete. To have most pupils leaving their study of chemistry at 16 or so, believing that chemical reactions
occur between atoms, so that the atoms can get full electron shells, is worse than them having no knowledge
about these matters at all. Perhaps better to be ignorant than ill-informed.

This document was added to the Education-line database on 16 October 2000