Research: Science and Education

edited by
Chemical Education Research Diane M. Bunce
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C. 20064

Using a Teaching Model to Correct Known

Misconceptions in Electrochemistry
Penelope Ann Huddle* and Margaret Dawn White
Department of Chemistry, University of the Witwatersrand, P O Wits 2050, South Africa;
*huddle@aurum.chem.wits.ac.za

Fiona Rogers
St Mary’s School for Girls, Waverley, 2090, Johannesburg, South Africa

A paper presented by de Jong (1) examined the current 1. Current is believed to always involve movement of elec-
crisis in chemical education in Europe and pinpointed three trons, even in solution and through the salt bridge.
problem areas, one of which is the failure of students to
2. In an electrochemical cell, anions and cations move
understand the key chemistry concepts, namely, the mole,
either until their concentration in both half-cells is
stoichiometry, chemical equilibrium, and electrochemistry (2).
equal or until one half-cell is strongly negatively
There are two major reasons that students experience
charged and the other is strongly positively charged.
problems with these concepts: the topics are very abstract,
and the language of chemistry is new. Teachers use words from 3. A lack of understanding of the significance of the signs
everyday language that have different meanings in the scien- of the anode and the cathode and what happens to
tific context—called “portmanteau words” (3). Students tend these signs when changing from an electrochemical to
to construct their own meanings for language that is used in an electrolytic cell. Many students interpret a nega-
the scientific context. Both de Jong (1) and Garnett and tive electrode to imply that the electrode is negatively
Treagust (4 ) pinpoint areas in electrochemistry where state- charged.
ments made by teachers are misinterpreted by students.
Furthermore, few students have a coherent concept of the
The fact that students manifest alternate conceptions
purpose of the salt-bridge.
(misconceptions) in many abstract topics has been well
documented (5). These alternate conceptions are extremely
resistant to remediation (6 ), and effective learning is unlikely Rationale for the Model
to occur if they are ignored (7). Moreover, if students believe
In South Africa, with our “absolute shortage of science
a concept to be very complex this can also affect their perfor-
and mathematics teachers at the secondary level” (22) and
mance and learning. More and more evidence (8) points to
50% of those employed to teach physical science under-
the value of using analogies in the form of concrete models
qualified, there is a desperate need to find ways of teaching
when teaching theoretical chemical concepts, to aid in the
key concepts that make them easily intelligible to both
development and refinement of ideas and for remediating
students and in-service teachers.
misconceptions (9). Dagher (10) suggests that the use of an
We tried for several years to devise a concrete model for
analogy provides students with a level of comfort and security
teaching electrochemistry that specifically addressed these
that enables them to connect what they know with the world
alternate conceptions. The model had to be one that could
of theories and abstractions. This is supported by Gilbert (11),
be simply and cheaply constructed and did not require elec-
who states that “models are a visualisable intermediary between
tricity for its working, so that it could be used in all schools
the imaginary world of theory and the world as experienced.”
and teacher-training colleges in South Africa, including those
Recent research has focused on students’ conceptual diffi-
that lacked electricity or sophisticated equipment. A successful
culties with electrochemistry (4, 12–15). Several researchers
model could possibly be implemented further in other
have reported that students find the topic difficult (16, 17) and
developing countries. Therefore, the use of videos (23) or
teachers experience problems teaching it (18). In an extensive
computer programs (24 ) for teaching this topic fell outside
study of the conceptual difficulties experienced in electro-
the ambit of our aims.
chemistry by senior high school pupils in Australia, Garnett
and Treagust (4, 13) found that students exhibited serious
A Concrete Model for Teaching Electrochemistry
misconceptions in this topic. Findings were similar when this
study was replicated in America (19, 20). Research by mem- The model was devised by an HDipEd student after
bers of this department (14, 15, 18, 21) has shown that school viewing the BBC TV Open Universities video Electrochemistry
pupils, college students, and preservice teachers in South Africa (23) and was modified and extended by us. It is a concrete
have all manifested similar erroneous conceptions. In the teaching model (11) and serves as an introduction to a consen-
studies in all three countries, three main misconceptions sus model, which students believe to be important but find
about current flow were identified: difficult to understand. The essential feature of the model is

104 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 1 January 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu

 Research: Science and Education

the use initially of a semipermeable membrane rather than a

salt bridge to complete the circuit and demonstrate the main-
tenance of cell neutrality. The working of a semipermeable
membrane is far simpler for students to understand than a
salt bridge containing ions different from those present in
the electrolytes. Once students have grasped the concept of
maintaining electrical neutrality in a cell fitted with a semi-
permeable membrane, the salt bridge can be introduced.
The model consists of two boxes joined together as
shown (Fig. 1). Polystyrene balls of the same size are used
for all atoms and ions; they are painted different colors for
identification. Marbles are used to depict valence electrons.
Prestik (“Blue Tack”) is used where necessary to hold marbles
in indentations made in the polystyrene balls. Holes large
enough to allow a polystyrene ball to pass through are cut
out of the connecting sides of the boxes. Rulers are used to
separate the “electrodes” from the “electrolyte solutions”. A
hose-pipe cut longitudinally is inserted into the tops of the
electrode compartments so that it slopes downward to allow Figure 1. Concrete model for teaching electrochemistry.
spontaneous flow of the marbles from the “anode” to the
“cathode” in the galvanic cell. Polystyrene balls are positioned
in the boxes as shown in Figure 1.
When demonstrating the model, students are told the
following:
The polystyrene balls, depending on their color, repre-
a
sent zinc, copper, or sulfate ions. In nature, individual
atoms/ions do not have any color—the color is used to
identify different atoms/ions.
The marbles represent the electrons.
When two marbles are inserted into the indentations in
a polystyrene ball, the “cation” is converted into an
“atom”, i.e., Cu2+ ion + 2e᎑ → Cu atom. b
When two marbles are removed from the indentations in a
polystyrene ball, the “atom” is converted into a “cation”.
In nature, while the diameter of zinc and copper atoms/
ions is roughly the same (~120 pm), the sulfate ion is
considerably larger (~200 pm). Also, Zn2+ and Cu2+ cations
are smaller that Zn and Cu atoms.
c
No water molecules are shown. If the concentration of
the solutions at the start were 1.0 mol dm᎑3, then 55 water
molecules would be required for every copper and sulfate
ion. In a real situation there would be a vast number of ions.
For simplicity only a few are shown. Figure 2. The working of the electrochemistry model.

In this model, the cathode is on the right-hand side. It

could be on either side—it makes no difference to the
working of the model.
The Working of the Model
A zinc atom is taken from the zinc electrode. The two
valence electrons (i.e., marbles) are removed and placed at
the top of the conducting wire (hose-pipe). The resulting zinc
cation is placed in the solution compartment on the left. Two
electrons (marbles) are then removed from the hose-pipe at
the copper electrode and inserted into a copper cation taken
from the right hand solution compartment. The resulting
copper atom is placed in the copper electrode compartment
(Fig. 2a). The attention of the students is then drawn to the
fact that there are now five zinc cations and only four sulfate
ions in the left-hand solution, while in the right-hand solution
there are now six copper ions but seven sulfate ions. To rees-
tablish neutrality either a sulfate ion could be pushed through
the semipermeable membrane from right to left (Fig. 2b) or a
zinc cation could be pushed through in the opposite direction
(Fig. 2c). Either process will reestablish electrical neutrality.
The whole process can be repeated several times, each time
starting with the removal of two electrons from a zinc atom
taken from the zinc electrode. Observers note that conduction
of charge in solution and through the semipermeable membrane
is by ions, not electrons—at no time do marbles (valence elec-
trons) appear in the electrolyte compartments. This migration

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 1 January 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education 105

 Research: Science and Education
of ions could also be through a salt bridge; either way, it is
the manner in which electrical neutrality in the two solutions
is maintained.
For students who have difficulty with determination of
cell potentials and cannot understand why it is the zinc atoms
and not copper that lose electrons, the potential ladder of Runo
and Peters (25) is very useful as a visual aid. The explana-
tion given in the Open Universities video (23), involving the
equilibria set up in each half-cell prior to connecting them,
is too advanced and clouds the essential features of an elec-
trochemical cell. Also, as equilibrium has been shown to cause
students even more difficulties than electrochemistry (2), we felt
that it was not expedient to mention it here. Placing the
hose-pipe in the tops of the electrode compartments so that
it slopes downward from the zinc to the copper is intentional,
to show the difference in potential of the zinc and the copper
and allow for the spontaneous flow of “electrons” down the
“conducting wire” from the one “electrode” to the other.
The Essential Features and Scope and Limitations
of the Model
NOTE: Students should be asked where the model resembles
and differs from reality before going through this list. Our stu-
dents noted many of the similarities and differences themselves.
1. No electrons (marbles) ever appear in the solutions or
move between the compartments other than via the
external conducting wire (the hose-pipe).
2. One electrode (zinc) gets smaller while the other one
(copper) increases in size.
3. Electrical neutrality in solution is maintained by ions, not
electrons, moving from one compartment to the other.
4. There is an overall movement of negative charge in
one direction (and positive ions in the opposite direc-
tion in the electrolytes) when the circuit is completed.
5. The model can be extended to explain why batteries
run down by continuing the demonstration until there
are no longer any copper cations left in the right-hand
compartment. Note, however, that in reality a battery
is run down when the concentration of ions becomes
low, not when it has been totally depleted.
6. The model can also be used to explain electrolytic cells
and the recharging of batteries. Garnett and Treagust
(4 ) found that one of the misconceptions exhibited by
students about electrolytic cells concerned the “swap-
ping around” of the electrodes in electrochemical and
electrolytic cells. One can reverse the actions in the
model to demonstrate the copper atoms losing elec-
trons and the zinc ions accepting them. By definition,
oxidation is now occurring at the copper electrode,
which becomes the anode while the zinc electrode
becomes the cathode. Attention is drawn to the fact that
the marbles now need to be pushed up the inclined
hose-pipe—hence the need for an external energy
source in electrolytic cells and when recharging batteries.
The main limitation of the model is that the actions are
sequential and not simultaneous.
The main strength of the model lies in its simplicity.
106 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 1 January 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
The Pilot Sample
Twenty-eight grade 12 pupils studying physical science
in a private all-girls secondary school in Johannesburg, South
Africa, were chosen to pilot the model.
The teacher first set up a Zn|ZnSO4||CuSO4|Cu cell con-
taining a voltmeter in the external circuit and a salt bridge
connecting the two electrolyte solutions. She showed the
pupils that the cell stopped working when the salt bridge was
removed. She then set up the model alongside the cell and
explained its working. She asked the pupils to compare the
model and Zn|Cu cell and point out any physical differences.
The pupils recognized most of the limitations of the model,
namely, the lack of water molecules, the size, color, and num-
ber of particles, and the absence of a salt bridge. However,
relative to previous years, the teacher found heightened interest
in electrochemistry, especially by the weaker pupils. Despite
her fears that using the model would require more time to
teach this section, she found that less time was required because
the pupils understood the processes so quickly and manifested
fewer alternate conceptions. In a class test given at the end
of the section, no pupils suggested that electrons moved in
solution or through the salt bridge, and the results for the
test were much better than in previous years.
The University Sample
Three 1996 Chemistry I classes at the University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, were chosen for this study.
Class I consisted of 67 Chemistry I (major) students who had
scored at least 60% in mathematics and physical science in
their final school examinations. Class II comprised 45 second-
year College of Science students who were studying Chem-
istry I over two years in a support program preparing them
for entry into the university mainstream. Students in the
College of Science do not attain the minimum requirements
in their final school examinations to allow them direct entry
into the university. They are predominantly black students
who experienced years of poor or disruptive schooling dur-
ing the latter years of apartheid rule in South Africa. Class
III, the control group, contained 75 Chemistry I major stu-
dents (the chemical engineers) of comparable ability to class
I. (Test and examination scores for the two major classes had
not varied by more than 3% during the past 10 years.) Class III
wrote the pretest and attended lectures on electrochemistry by a
lecturer who, like Sanger and Greenbowe (20), taught to
actively confront and therefore to prevent or dispel known
misconceptions in this topic. This class was never shown the
model.
The Pretest
Before any electrochemistry lectures were delivered to
the three classes, they were given a pretest (see Box 1) involving
eight tasks, which tested understanding rather than knowledge
of the concepts of electrochemistry. Understanding of a topic
should be retained indefinitely if a student found it intelli-
gible, fruitful, and plausible when it was originally taught (26 ).
All the students had been exposed to the topic at school but
had not yet encountered it at university. Class II students
may have had less exposure to the topic at school, as they gen-
erally had poorer schooling experiences. Students were asked to

Box 1. Electrochemistry Questionnaire
Only tasks specifically addressed by the model are included here.
TASK 1
In the circuit represented in the diagram, to get the
bulb glowing brightly, the beaker could contain:
(a) potassium sulphate dissolved in water
(b) sugar dissolved in water
(c) molten sugar
(d) dilute sulfuric acid
(e) molten potassium bromide
(“molten” means the salt is heated sufficiently to melt)
Select the answer(s) you think are correct. Explain your choice.
TASK 7
Look at the figure below and, using the table of reduction poten-
tials, answer the questions that follow.
Diagram of Pt, H2|H2SO4||ZnSO4|Zn cell
(a) Label the anode and cathode.
(b) Show the direction of electron flow and movement of all ions.
(c) Write the half-reaction occurring at the cathode and anode.
(d) Calculate the voltmeter reading.
(e) What is the function of the salt bridge? Explain.
(f) Could the salt bridge be replaced by graphite (a semiconductor)?
Explain.
(g) What would the reading on the voltmeter be if the salt bridge
were removed? Explain.
TASK 8
An enlargement of the left-hand electrode in Task 7 is given and
students are asked to give a microscopic representation of what
is occurring in the half-cell when the voltmeter registers a posi-
tive reading.
Box 2. Final Examination Question on Electrochemistry
Use the data provided to explain why copper dissolves in nitric
acid but not in hydrochloric acid.
3Cu(s) + 2HNO3(aq) + 6H+(aq) → 3Cu2+(aq) + 2NO(g) + 4H2O(ᐉ)
Cu(s) + 2Cl᎑(aq) + 2H+(aq) → Cu2+(aq) + H2(g) + 2Cl᎑(aq)
Half-Reaction E°/V
Cu2+(aq) + 2e ᎑ → Cu(s) 0.34
2H+(aq) + 2e ᎑ → H2(g) 0.00
HNO3(aq) + 3H+(aq) + 3e ᎑ → NO(g) + H2O(ᐉ) 0.96
Draw a fully labeled diagram of an electrochemical (galvanic)
cell for the reaction of copper with nitric acid. Use arrows to
show the direction of movement of electrons and all ions. (Use a
platinum electrode in the half-cell containing nitric acid).
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 1 January 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education
Research: Science and Education
complete the questionnaire during a 45-minute period with the
lecturer in charge. No discussion among students was allowed.
Results and Discussion
TASK 1 (BOX 1). Of the 167 students in the three classes
who took the pretest, most indicated that an aqueous solution
containing ions would conduct electricity (option a, d, or e).
No students selected option b or c (the aqueous sugar solution
or molten sugar); that is, it seemed that all students appreci-
ated that ions were required to transfer charge in solution to
cause the bulb to glow. (Comparable experiments are carried
out at school.) However, explanations by students revealed
their misconceptions: for example, “current is a flow of elec-
trons; these ions will be able to conduct the electrons and
complete the circuit”; “potassium sulphate has delocalized elec-
trons and positive protons that move to the opposite electrodes
when a current is applied”; “anions produce electrons which
conduct”; “H2SO4 is a proton donor, protons are transferred
across the potential difference”; “KBr has many electrons freely
available, therefore, electrons moving cause a change in poten-
tial”. One student gave the equation for the ionization of
sulfuric acid as “H2SO4 → H3O+ + SO42᎑ + 2e᎑”. Thus, students
knew that ions were required in the electrolyte, but the major-
ity believed that their purpose was to furnish electrons (and
occasionally protons) to transfer charge through the solution.
TASKS 2–6. Tasks 2–6 did not address the documented
misconceptions in this article and are therefore omitted from
the discussion.
TASKS 7, 8. Salient points from tasks 7 and 8 were
analyzed separately for the three classes (Table 1). These tasks
revealed that the students had very little understanding of
what occurs at the microscopic level in electrochemical cells,
especially in the electrolytes. Although most students could
remember how to manipulate electrode potentials and write
half-cell reactions, they had considerable difficulty identifying
which ions were moving and the regions in which this move-
ment occurred. Most students did not show any movement
of ions. Some showed (unspecified) “ions” traveling along the
conducting wire in the opposite direction to the electrons! A
few wrote “ions” with arrows pointing into or out of the salt
bridge. Seventy-three percent showed electrons moving along
the conducting wire (though not necessarily from the anode
to the cathode), 4% drew electrons in solution, and 20%
showed electrons moving within the salt bridge. Few students
had any idea of what was occurring at the standard hydrogen
electrode. Some oxidized the platinum electrode to Pt2+ ions,
and a few even managed to produce HO᎑ by removing H2
from H 3O+! Sanger and Greenbowe (19) similarly found
students who had difficulties with inert electrodes.
Thirty-eight percent of students correctly stated that the
function of the salt bridge was to “transfer ions”. A further
16% were more vague and said it “completed the circuit”,
“allowed current flow”, or “maintained neutrality of the
solutions”. Some students actually stated that the salt bridge
allowed for the transfer of electrons.
To further probe their understanding of the working of
a salt bridge, students were asked if it could be replaced by a
graphite rod. While the majority of students who answered
this question did not believe this was possible, only half of them
gave the correct reason. Erroneous explanations included
107
 Research: Science and Education

Table 1. Analysis of Electrochemistry Questions in the Pretest and Final classes (I and III) fared similarly,
Examination whereas class II could not demon-
Experimental Groups Control Group strate the correct movement of
Class I Class I Class II Class II Class III Class III ions either in the salt bridge or in
Item Pretest Final Pretest Final Pretest Final solution. However, in the exami-
(n = 58) (n = 67) (n = 41) (n = 45) (n = 68) (n = 75)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
nation the performances of the ex-
1. Electrons shown moving correctly along the 52 87 51 73 47 79
perimental groups (I and II) were
conducting wire very similar and they had a compa-
2. Electrons drawn in solution 7 0 12 2a 8 4 rable understanding of what was oc-
3. Electrons drawn in the salt bridge 26 0 17 4a 20 5 curring at the microscopic level in
4. "Ions" shown moving in the salt bridge 62 54 51 58 60 53 the electrochemical cell. Surpris-
(correctly or incorrectly) ingly, class II now exhibited a su-
5. Correct ions shown moving correctly in salt 22 64 0 56 23 28 perior ability to show the move-
bridge or across semipermeable membrane ment of ions correctly in solution.
6. Ions drawn in the electrolytes (correctly or 24 51 4 42 25 23 This may be because they manipu-
incorrectly)
lated the model themselves rather
7. Ions shown moving correctly in both 12 21 2 31 15 16
electrolytes than having it demonstrated to
8. Ions drawn along the conducting wire 5 3 12 0 5 4 them, as it was for class I. Just as
Sanger and Greenbowe (19) found
Note: For each class, the number of students who take the pretest is smaller than the number of
students who take the final exam because not all students attend lectures and tutorials. that demonstration of their com-
aIncludes 1 student (2% of sample) who did not attend the tutorial involving the model. puter animation by the lecturer
was not wholly successful and they
plan to give students access to it
“a semiconductor will allow too slow a flow of current [or on the chem file server, so we plan to introduce the tutorial
electrons]”; one student required a salt-bridge because both undertaken by class II into all Chemistry I courses so that all
electrons and protons had to be transferred through it. students can manipulate the model themselves.
Most students (66%) correctly stated that the reading The results of class III in the examination for items 4–8
on the voltmeter would drop to zero if the salt bridge were (Table 1) were comparable to those in the pretest: lectures
removed, but again their reasons were vague—it had to be and tutorials alone resulted in minimal improvement of their
there to maintain “current” flow. understanding of what was occurring at the microscopic level
with respect to the movement of ions in and out of the salt
Use of the Model bridge and within the electrolytes in an electrochemical cell.
During lectures to class I, a Zn|Cu cell was demonstrated Active teaching by the lecturer to class III reduced the per-
using first a salt bridge and then a piece of filter paper that centage of students who drew electrons in the salt bridge and
had been dipped into a concentrated potassium chloride electrolytes in the examination but did not completely eradi-
solution to complete the circuit. The model was then dem- cate this problem, as was the case for class I students for whom
onstrated to groups of about 20 students during a tutorial the model was demonstrated.
session. To determine whether any conceptual change had In the examination, 64% of class I showed ions moving
occurred, a question on electrochemistry (Box 2) was set for correctly through either a salt bridge or a semipermeable
the final examination, which was written almost two months membrane and 21% showed the ions moving correctly in
after instruction. This question was similar to tasks 7 and 8 both electrolytes. In the control group a mere 28% drew the
of the pretest. The same examination question was set for class ions moving correctly through a salt bridge (a semipermeable
III (the control class). For class II, four identical models were membrane was never chosen) and 16% showed the ions
constructed for use by groups of students during a tutorial moving correctly in the electrolytes.
on electrochemistry planned around the model. During this While 33% of students in class I drew electrons moving
tutorial, they set up cells using filter paper dipped in various in the salt bridge or solution in the pretest, none did so in
solvents (water, hexane, saturated KCl) as a salt bridge and their final examination. In class II, 2% still drew electrons in
then manipulated the model themselves before answering the solution and 4% in the salt bridge. However, the one
questions allied to it. An electrochemistry question similar to student (2%) who drew electrons in both the solution and
that set for class I was given to class II students in their final the salt bridge did not attend the tutorial involving the
examination (Box 2), written about six weeks after instruction. model. Thus, of the 127 learners comprising the pilot school
The main difference between the questions given to the major sample (28), class I (58), and class II (41) who saw the model
students (classes I and III) and class II is that the latter in operation, only one still drew electrons in the salt bridge
(who came from poorer educational backgrounds) were given and none drew electrons in solution! In comparison, in the
directed subquestions to guide them through the calculations control group after instruction, 4 students still drew electrons
and diagrams. in the salt bridge and 3 drew them in solution.
Even though the model does not show any water mol-
Comparison of Answers to Pretest and Examination ecules, the percentages of students in all three classes who
Questions omitted the solvent from their drawings were comparable.
Student responses to the pretest and examination questions Thus, the absence of water molecules in the model does not
were analyzed. Table 1 shows that in the pretest the major seem to be a major problem.

108 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 1 January 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu

 Research: Science and Education

Statistical Analysis Table 2. Comparison of Exam Scores in Experimental

It was not possible to perform a logistic regression analysis Classes (I + II) and Control Class (III)
of the data, as the students in class III did not identify them- Pretest Final Exam
selves in the pretest scripts and pairing of their results was Item (nI + II = 85, nIII = 67) (nI + II = 85, nIII = 72)
not possible. Therefore, 2 × 2 contingency table χ2 tests were χ2 p χ2 p
run. Because these showed no significant difference between 1 0.037 .871 4.227 .058
the results of classes I and II in the pretests, the results of 2 0.009 1.000 1.404 .333
these classes were combined for further analysis. Also, there 3 2.457 .137 4.687 .048
was no significant difference between the experimental and
4 0.195 .740 14.590 0.000
control groups in the pretest (.137 < p < 1.000) for any item in
Table 1 except item 7 (see Table 2). However, the difference be- 5 0.332 .692 22.968 0.000
tween the experimental and control groups in the final exam 6 0.372 .566 14.586 0.000
(post-test) for items 4–7 of Table 1 was highly significant 7 10.550 .001 12.117 .001
(0.000 < p < .048); that is, the experimental groups had a 8 0.072 1.000 3.611 .094
greater ability to show the correct movement of ions in the elec- Note: Values of p less than .05 are considered significant.
trolytes and through a salt bridge or semipermeable mem-
brane.
A one-tailed Z-test of the differences in the proportion, P, alternate conceptions and assisted pupils to visualize what was
of correct responses between the pretest and exam (post-test) occurring at the microscopic level in an electrochemical cell,
scores for classes I and II (Table 3) showed a highly signifi- and found them more responsive to this section than in pre-
cant improvement for all items in Table 1 (0.000 < p < .007). vious years.
For class III a highly significant improvement was obtained This research also showed that chemistry students at a
only for item 1 (the ability to draw the electrons moving South African university manifest many of the alternate con-
correctly along the conducting wire). ceptions in electrochemistry found by Garnett and Treagust
(4) and Sanger and Greenbowe (19) in studies of Australian
P post,i – P pre,i P post,i 1– P post,i P pre,i 1– P pre,i and American students, respectively. These misconceptions
Z= s , where s = n post,i + n pre,i may not be apparent by simple multiple choice questioning.
Explanation of the choice of answer is essential to probe the
A final test to analyze the difference between the post- level of understanding of the students.
test–pretest proportion differences between classes I plus II Use of the model led to significant improvement in the
and class III (Table 4) confirmed that there was a highly sig- students’ understanding of what was occurring at the micro-
nificant difference between the experimental and control scopic level in an electrochemical cell and helped to address
groups for items 3–7 in Table 1; that is, the experimental known alternate conceptions documented in this paper. Of
groups who had been shown the model had a significantly the 127 students who saw the model in operation, only one
greater ability (0.000 < p < .007) to show what was occurring still drew electrons moving in the salt bridge or solution. The
at the microscopic level in an electrolytic cell. improved ability of these students to show what was occurring
at the microscopic level in the cells is very encouraging.
Summary and Conclusion Dagher (10) pointed out that the contribution of instructional
analogies to conceptual change is most likely to be of a covert
A model for teaching electrochemistry is presented. Both nature, leading to small but substantive shifts in students’
the scope and the limitations of the model are given. Piloting understanding of concepts. Expecting all conceptual change to
of the model in a secondary school showed that it reduced be of a radical nature is equivalent to expecting all worthwhile

Table 4. Difference in "Post"–

Table 3. One-Tailed Z-Test of Difference in Proportion of Correct Responses "Pre" Proportion Differences
between Exam Scores and Pretest Scores between Classes I + II and
Experimental Groups ( I + II) Control Group (III) Class III
Item
Ppost– Ppre S Z p Ppost– Ppre S Z p Item Z p
1 0.47059 0.061622 7.63669 0.000 0.34287 0.076721 4.46906 0.000 1 ᎑2.23986 .025
2 0.08235 0.033761 2.43926 .007 0.04789 0.042089 1.13772 .128 2 ᎑0.92033 .357
3 0.29412 0.051329 5.73007 0.000 0.11070 0.058267 1.89982 .029 3 ᎑2.70840 .007
4 0.24706 0.067691 3.64978 .001 ᎑0.07027 0.083621 ᎑0.84039 .200 4 ᎑3.17503 .001
5 0.44706 0.067595 6.62377 0.000 0.02508 0.073560 0.34099 .367 5 ᎑4.43553 0.000
6 0.49412 0.066380 7.44380 0.000 0.14905 0.078531 1.89794 .029 6 ᎑3.92152 0.000
7 0.41176 0.054856 7.50631 0.000 0.01741 0.061840 0.28158 .389 7 ᎑5.10866 0.000
8 0.07059 0.027782 2.54081 .006 0.01803 0.037316 0.48330 .314 8 ᎑1.45487 .146
Note: “Post” refers to the final examination. Values of p less than .05 are considered significant. Note: Values of p less than .05
Values less than .01 are highly significant. are considered significant. Values
less than .01 are highly significant.

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 1 January 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education 109

Research: Science and Education

science to be revolutionary. It is thus unlikely that demon- 7.
stration of the model would lead to total eradication of the 8.
targeted misconceptions in a class of students. 9.
The model does not address misconceptions related to 10.
electrolytic and concentration cells (4, 18), but does go some 11.
way toward giving students an initial understanding of what
is occurring in an electrochemical cell at the microscopic level
and may make them more receptive to teaching of more dif-
ficult concepts in this topic. Sanger and Greenbowe (19) used 12.
computer animations as a tool to enhance students’ ability to 13.
visualize and understand chemical concepts at the molecular
level. In the absence of available computer technology, we 14.
believe that this model can contribute to students’ ability to 15.
visualize particulate behavior in electrochemical reactions and,
in so doing, address known alternate conceptions. 16.
17.
Acknowledgments
18.
We wish to thank Ian McKay for his innovative model
incorporating a semipermeable membrane for use in teach-
ing electrochemistry, which led to the model presented in this
paper. We also thank Data Management and Statistical
Analyses (DMSA) at Wits for the statistical analysis. 19.
Literature Cited 20.
1. De Jong, O. Characteristics of Chemistry Education in Research 21.
in Europe: A Three-Context View; Paper presented at the Third
Conference on Research in Chemical Education, Lublin-
Kazimierz, Poland, September 1995. 22.
2. Hackling, M. W.; Garnett, P. J. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1985, 7, 205– 23.
214.
3. Rutherford, M.; Nkopodi, N. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1990, 12, 443– 24.
456. 25.
4. Garnett, J. D.; Treagust, A. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 1079– 26.
1099.
5. Osborne, R. J.; Bell, B. F. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1983, 5, 1–14. 27.
6. Novak, J. D. Studies Sci. Educ. 1988, 15, 77–101.
Clement, J. Am. J. Phys. 1982, 50, 66–71.
Wong, E. D. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1993, 30, 1259–1272.
Brown, D. E. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1993, 30, 1273–1290.
Dagher, Z. R. Sci. Educ. 1994, 78, 601–614.
Gilbert, J. K. Models in Science and Science Education; Paper pre-
sented at The Link Proceedings of the 16th National Confed-
eration of Natural Science and Mathematics Education Asso-
ciations of South Africa, 1996.
Allsop, R. T.; George, N. H. Educ. Chem. 1982, 19, 57–59.
Garnett, J. D.; Treagust, A. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 121–
142.
Ogude, A. N.; Bradley, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 29–34.
Ogude, A. N.; Bradley, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 1145–
1149.
Butts, B.; Smith, R. Aust. Sci. Teach. J. 1987, 32(4), 45–51.
Finley, F. N.; Stewart, J.; Yarroch, W. L. Sci. Educ. 1982,
66, 531–538.
Brand, M. What Beginner Teachers Find Most Difficult in Stan-
dard 8–10 Chemistry and Why; Paper presented at 11th Na-
tional Convention of Teachers of Mathematics, Physical Sci-
ence and Biology of South Africa; Grahamstown, South Af-
rica, July 1987.
Sanger, M. J.; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997,
34, 377–398.
Sanger, M. J.; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 819–
823.
Masher, G. L. Student’s Understanding of Current Electro-
chemical Cells; M.Sc. Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, 1995.
Kahn, M. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1995, 17, 441–452.
Electrochemistry; Open Universities video; BBC TV: London,
1985.
Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 555–557.
Runo, J. R.; Peters, D J. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 708–713.
Posner, G. J; Strike, K. A.; Hewson, P. W.; Gertzog, W. A.
Sci. Educ. 1982, 66, 211–227.
Toon, E. R.; Ellis, G. L.; Brodkin, J. Foundations of Chemis-
try; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, 1968.

110 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 1 January 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu