pubs.acs.

org/jchemeduc Chemical Education Research

A Review of Research on the Teaching and Learning of Chemical

Bonding
Kevin H. Hunter, Jon-Marc G. Rodriguez, and Nicole M. Becker*

Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations

See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: We review the literature, from 2006 to 2020, focused on

the teaching and learning of chemical bonding. The studies included in
our review (48 studies set in 19 different countries overall) involved
secondary and postsecondary students as well as K-12 teachers and
Downloaded via 181.162.4.88 on March 20, 2023 at 23:48:23 (UTC).

university faculty. We synthesize these studies’ findings to provide

implications for future research and instruction. To this end, our analysis
summarizes the range of methodological choices employed and reports
on students’ understanding of chemical bonding. On the basis of our
analysis, we find that studies tended to overemphasize the cataloging of
alternative conceptions in the context of first-year general chemistry,
which suggests the need for more work that emphasizes students’
reasoning regarding advanced models of bonding in higher levels of the
undergraduate chemistry curriculum.
KEYWORDS: First Year-Undergraduate/General, Chemical Education Research, Covalent Bonding, General Public, Ionic Bonding,
Metallic Bonding, MO Theory, Quantum Chemistry, Valence Bond Theory

■ INTRODUCTION
The primary aim of this paper is to review the recent research
literature on the teaching and learning of chemical
bonding.1−48 Chemical bonding plays a central role across
the chemistry curriculum at the secondary and tertiary levels.
Ideas about chemical bonding are essential for drawing
inferences about structure and function relationships as well
as making connections to other topics such as thermody-
namics. Importantly, several independent curricular reform
efforts in the United States have characterized ideas about
chemical bonding and electrostatic interactions as “disciplinary
core ideas” or “anchoring concepts” in chemistry.49−52 Indeed,
chemical bonding is a foundational topic across the under-
graduate chemistry curriculum, with bonding-related ideas
reinforced across general chemistry,49,53 organic chemistry,54
inorganic chemistry,55 physical chemistry,56 analytic chem-
istry,57 and biochemistry.58 It is within this landscape that we
review the growing body of literature on this topic.
bonding-focused research literature, highlighting alternative
conceptions about chemical bonding from four key studies that
explored high school and undergraduate students’ ideas about
bonding. Following this, in 2006, Ü nal et al.60 conducted a
more extensive thematic review of students’ ideas about
chemical bonding. In their review, Ü nal and colleagues60
highlighted the methods used in studies about students’ ideas
about bonding as well as key findings related to students’
alternative conceptions. Building on this work, our review
synthesizes post-2006 developments in research on students’
ideas about bonding while using a systematic approach to
analysis, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We
identify how the literature has changed since 2006 in order
to inform future directions in research and curriculum
development related to bonding.
■ METHODS

■
Our sampling approach followed the guidelines published in
PURPOSE Chemistry Education Research and Practice62 and recommenda-
We aim to synthesize research related to the teaching and
learning of chemical bonding published from 2006 to 2020 and Received: January 14, 2022
to provide recommendations for future research and ongoing Revised: May 27, 2022
curricular reform efforts centered on the “big idea” of bonding. Published: June 16, 2022
Our review builds upon previous work that reviewed literature
related to students’ ideas about chemical bonding.59−61
Notably, in 2004, Ö zmen59 reviewed a subset of the
© 2022 The Authors. Published by
American Chemical Society and Division https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
of Chemical Education, Inc. 2451 J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Chemical Education Research

tions from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic

Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)63 project for system-
atic reviews. Our sampling criteria included papers that were
written in English, published in a peer-reviewed journal
between 2006 and 2020 (inclusive), and addressed partic-
ipants’ conceptions of chemical bonding and bonding models.
This included studies involving students and instructors/
faculty at the K-12 and university level. The time frame of
2006−2020 was selected on the basis of the publication of a
previous review of chemical bonding literature in 2006.60 We
included chemical education research articles addressing
students’ understanding of bonding and bonding models,
and, in contrast to the 2006 review by Ü nal and colleagues,60
we excluded activities, commentaries, conference proceedings,
and unpublished dissertations. We also excluded articles
describing research related to bonding-adjacent concepts
(e.g., IR spectroscopy, Lewis structures, intermolecular forces,
reactions and mechanisms, symmetry/point group determi-
nation). As a final sampling criterion, we only included
research papers published in journals that had an impact factor
greater than 1.0. Journal impact factor values are common
measures of journal quality and are calculated by taking into
account the papers published by a journal and the citations the
journal receives during a bounded time-interval.64 For
reference, as of 2022, the impact factor for Chemistry Education
Research and Practice is 2.95965 and that for the Journal of
Chemical Education is 2.979.66 While there are limitations in
using journal impact factor as a metric for the evaluation of
research quality,64,67 in our sampling this proved to be a useful
criterion for narrowing the scope of the review to focus on
high-quality research from recognized journals.
For our principal data collection, we used the Education
Resources Information Center (ERIC) database, which has
been used in similar review articles.68,69 Using the keywords
“bond” AND “chemistry”, we gathered 191 articles and then Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the process for
selecting studies included in the review. In addition to the standard
conducted an initial screening of the title and abstract to
steps outlined by PRISMA, in red, we collected 26 additional records
remove any papers that were unrelated to education research through the citations from the 22 records included in the qualitative
(e.g., articles that detailed laboratory experiments for chemical synthesis to reach a final sample of 48 manuscripts.
syntheses). Following this initial screening, a more in-depth
screening was done for the remaining 120 articles based on the
inclusion criteria discussed above. This resulted in 22 articles
that fit the scope of our review. From these 22 articles, we
iteratively examined the citations of those articles to find
additional articles that fit our inclusion criteria, yielding 26
additional articles. Thus, our final sample included 48
papers,1−48 a number comparable to the sample size of other
reviews in chemistry education.68,69 Figure 1 summarizes the
sampling process in a PRISMA flow diagram.70 These articles
included studies conducted across the globe (in 19 different
countries, see Figure 2), and participants ranging from junior
high school to undergraduate, as K-12 instructors and
university chemistry faculty. Twelve education journals are
represented in the final sample, with the most common
journals being Chemistry Education Research and Practice (n =
18), International Journal of Science Education (n = 8), Journal of Figure 2. Number of studies involving each country as a context for
Chemical Education (n = 3), and Journal of Research in Science the research carried out. Some studies carried out in more than one
Teaching (n = 3). national educational context.

■ FINDINGS
Overview
quantitative methods, we used a deductive coding scheme
adapted from Mack, Hensen, and Barbera.71 For studies that
involved qualitative methods, we used open coding to
Following the data collection process, we first categorized the characterize the studies.72 These categories are not mutually
methods used in each study. For studies that involved exclusive; in some cases, a study had multiple types of data
2452 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Chemical Education Research

Table 1. Summary of the Frequency of Research Design Types Observeda

design type n description
Quantitative Post-test, one 11 A group receives a treatment and is then assessed on the outcome measure.
group
Post-test, 3 One group experiences a treatment, and a second group experiences an alternative treatment (or the absence of that treatment). Each
two groups group is then assessed on the same outcome measure at about the same time and under similar conditions.
Pre/post- 1 A group completes a pretreatment assessment, experiences a treatment condition, and is then assessed on the outcome measure.
test, one
group
Pre/post- 3 Two groups are assessed on the same outcome measure at about the same time and under similar conditions. Next, one group
test, two experiences a treatment while the other group experiences an alternative treatment (or the absence of that treatment). Each group is
groups then assessed on the same outcome measure at about the same time and under similar conditions.
Qualitative Interview 29 Participants are interviewed and their responses are analyzed.
Open-ended 19 Open-ended survey prompts (including free response questions on exams, quizzes, assessments) are administered to participants and
survey then analyzed.
Textbook 7 Textbook presentation of content is analyzed.
analysis
Classroom 5 Video recordings of participants in a classroom are analyzed.
observation
a
Note that a single study could involve multiple design types. Quantitative categories were adapted from Mack, Hensen, and Barbera.71 Qualitative
categories were adapted from Rodriguez et al.72.

(e.g., interviews and classroom observations, qualitative and Strands of Research

quantitative data, etc.), requiring the application of multiple
codes. Next, we used open coding to characterize the main
findings of the studies. Our discussion of findings proceeds as
follows. First, we report on the range of methods employed,
the education-level of study participants, the countries where
studies were undertaken, and the key themes arising in articles.
Next, we undertake a systematic discussion of the findings
related to students’ understandings of bonding and bonding
models. Lastly, we discuss research that addresses the role of
the instructor in students’ learning about bonding.
Methods Used in Reviewed Studies
In Table 1, we summarize the research design types observed
in our sample. In contrast to the broader body of chemistry
education research,73 qualitative research methods were well-
represented. In 42 of the 48 studies in our sample, researchers
applied qualitative research methods. In most of these cases,
semistructured interviews or open-ended written assessments
were used to evaluate students’ reasoning. In addition, 18
studies in our sample relied on quantitative methods, notably a
variety of bonding-related student assessments. Among the
instruments used to assess students’ understanding, some
researchers developed their own assess-
ments,2,7,9,11,13,15,21,24,26,27,31,35,40 while others adapted and
used instruments previously reported in the litera-
ture.28,37,42−44 Examples of research-based instruments used
include The Truth About Ionic Bonding (TTAIB) instru-
ment74 and the Bonding Representations Inventory (BRI).21
In some cases, quantitative methods were used to provide a
general overview of students’ reasoning about chemical
bonding within a population or across popula-
tions.7,9,13,24,37,42−44 In other cases, quantitative methods
were used to assess the efficacy of curricular and pedagogical
interventions.2,11,15,27,28,31,35,40
Participants
The participants were sampled from a range of education levels
and national contexts. Secondary (junior high/high school)
and university level students were participants in 26 studies
each. An additional seven studies addressed the role of faculty
and/or instructors in students’ learning about bonding (i.e.,
instructors were the participants). Curricular contexts in 19
countries are covered by our sample (detailed in Figure 2).
2453
Following our analysis of the articles in our sample, two strands
of research emerged: (1) research documenting students’
alternative conceptions related to bonding and bonding models
and (2) research exploring the role of the instructor and
curriculum in students’ learning about bonding and bonding
models. Of the studies addressing students’ understanding,
most focused on students’ ideas related to ionic and covalent
bonding; less common were articles addressing conceptions of
advanced bonding models (e.g., molecular orbital theory,
valence bond theory, crystal field theory). In the following
sections, we detail findings with respect to these two key
themes.
Student Understanding of Bonding and Bonding Models
To organize our discussion of students’ ideas about bonding,
we use the American Chemical Society Anchoring Concepts
Content Maps (ACS ACCM), which identifies ten funda-
mental chemistry “anchoring concepts” in chemistry: atoms;
bonding; structure and function; intermolecular forces;
reactions; energy and thermodynamics; kinetics; equilibrium;
measurement and data; visualization and scale.53 The ACCM
is a multitiered framework developed iteratively through
workshops with content experts.75 It outlines core concepts
typically taught and assessed in the U.S. undergraduate
chemistry curriculum. Each of these anchoring concepts is
defined by starting with broad overarching themes known as
“big ideas” and ending with fine-grained statements known as
“content details.” To illustrate, consider the following example
related to bonding from the ACCM:53 Bonding: Atoms interact
via electrostatic forces to form chemical bonds (big idea); Because
protons and electrons are charged, physical models of bonding are
based on electrostatic forces (enduring understanding); Ionic
bonding is described via the interaction of positive and negative
charged ions via Coulomb forces (subdisciplinary articulation);
and Lattice structures of ionic substances display the alternation of
opposite charges, which leads to a net attractive force (content
detail). To date, the ACS Exams Institute has released an
ACCM for general chemistry,53 and for the subdisciplines of
organic chemistry,54 inorganic chemistry,55 physical chem-
istry,56 and analytical chemistry.57 For each of the ten
anchoring concepts, big ideas and enduring understandings
were designed to be the same across each ACCM, while
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education
subdisciplinary articulations and content details reflect
subdiscipline-specific content. We structure our review around
the general chemistry ACCM, as it sufficiently captures the
conceptions addressed by our literature sample.
Below, we organize main themes observed in the content
addressed in our sample around enduring understandings
under bonding in the General Chemistry ACCM.49 In the next
series of tables (Tables 2−9), we present alternative
Table 2. Alternative Conceptions Related to Ionic Bonding,
Organized under Enduring Understanding (A): “Because
Protons and Electrons Are Charged, Physical Models of
Bonding Are Based on Electrostatic Forces”53,a
Ionic bonding is described via the interaction of positive and negative
charged ions via Coulomb forces.
Lattice structures of ionic substances display the alternation of opposite charges,
which leads to a net attractive force.
Ionic compounds are composed of molecules that contain Coll10
an ionic bond*
Describing ionic bonding as the transfer of electrons is
more accurate than attraction of charges*
Ionic compounds are brittle because of weak bonds
Ionic bonds only exist between alkali metal and halogen Ö zmen et al.26
atoms
Polyatomic ions do not participate in ionic bonding
a
Bold rows represent subdisciplinary articulation, and italics indicate
the fine-grained content detail of the anchoring concepts content
map. An asterisk next to any alternative conception indicates that it
was previously reported in the 2006 Ü nal et al.60 review.
conceptions documented by research studies in our sample
within an enduring understanding from the ACCM. In each
table, we list the studies from our sample in which each
alternative conception appears. Because of the large number of
alternative conceptions surfaced by studies that relate to the
ACCM enduring understanding “Because protons and
electrons are charged, physical models of bonding are based
on electrostatic forces,”53 we parsed those alternative
conceptions into separate tables addressing ionic bonding
conceptions (Table 2) and covalent bonding conceptions
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Chemical Education Research
(Table 3). Moreover, as we analyzed the data, we noted that
many alternative conceptions identified by studies in our
sample had been previously reported in the review by Ü nal et
al.60 To this end, we designate with an asterisk any alternative
conceptions that were replicated from the studies in the Ü nal
et al.60 review. Since we do not discuss the findings from the
2006 review by Ü nal et al.60 in detail, we encourage interested
readers to consult the Ü nal et al. review for a more in-depth
analysis of findings on those specific alternative conceptions.
Ionic Bonding. In Table 2 we summarize alternative
conceptions reported in our sample that relate to electrostatic
models of ionic bonding, which are organized under the
enduring understanding “Because protons and electrons are
charged, physical models of bonding are based on electrostatic
forces.”53
One of the most commonly reported alternative conceptions
was the idea that ionic compounds are comprised of discrete
pairs of ions rather than an extended lattice struc-
Luxford and
ture.21,24,26,30,36,37,42−44 For example, Taber et al.37 observed
Bretz21 that secondary and university students may conceptualize
Nimmermark et electron transfer as resulting in molecule-like bonded ion pairs
al.24 instead of individual atoms that are held together by
Othman et al.26 electrostatic forces. Interestingly, from an analysis of secondary
Pappa and level general chemistry textbooks, Bergqvist and colleagues3
Tsaparlis30
Smith and
found that many textbooks specifically described ionic bonding
Nakhleh36 as an electron transfer process and described an ion pair of
Taber et al.37 sodium chloride as the “building element of the crystal”,
Vladušić et al.42 framings which may contribute toward the idea that ionic
Vrabec and compounds are comprised of molecules. It has also been noted
Prokša43 that the common instructional practice of representing ionic
Wang and bonding as the interaction between a single metal and
Burrow44
nonmetal, instead of the more normative lattice network of
Bergqvist and
Rundgren5 atoms, may be further contributing toward this alternative
Bergqvist et al.3 conception.24
Doymus11 Another common alternative conception evident in our
Luxford and sample was the idea that ionic bonding can be sufficiently
Bretz20,21 described by the transfer of electrons, in contrast to the view
Prodjosantoso et that the ionic bonding arises from the electrostatic attraction of
al.31
oppositely charged ions that result from electron trans-
Sendur34
Taber et al.37
fer.11,20,21,31,34,37,43 This idea has been noted in analyses of
Vrabec and
students’ reasoning ranging from high school to university
Prokša43 level.11,20,21,31,34,37 It has been suggested that the prevalence of
Coll10 this alternative conception may be the result of textbook
framing of ionic bonding as related to electron transfer (in
contrast to covalent bonding, which is described as sharing of
Prodjosantoso et electrons).3,5
al.31
Lastly, there is some evidence that students may not
recognize that ionic bonding can take place between any
oppositely charged species. For example, one study noted that
secondary students indicated that ionic bonds only exist
between alkali metals and halogens, which the researchers
attributed to the examples commonly given by instructors,
such as sodium chloride and potassium fluoride.28 Similarly,
Prodjosantoso et al.31 observed that secondary-level students
tended to state that polyatomic ions do not participate in ionic
bonding because ionic bonds only exist between metal and
nonmetal atoms.
Covalent Bonding. In Table 3, we summarize alternative
conceptions reported in our sample that relate to covalent
bonding. These ideas relate to the enduring understanding
“Because protons and electrons are charged, physical models of
bonding are based on electrostatic forces.”53
2454 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Chemical Education Research

Table 3. Alternative Conceptions Related to Covalent Table 4. Alternative Conceptions Related to Bonding
Bonding Organized under Enduring Understanding (A): Organized under Enduring Understanding (B): “Because
“Because Protons and Electrons Are Charged, Physical Chemical Bonds Arise from Sharing of Negatively Charged
Models of Bonding Are Based on Electrostatic Forces”53,a Valence Electrons between Positively Charged Nuclei, the
Overall Electrostatic Interaction Is Attractive”53,a
Covalent bonds can be distinguished from ionic ones and trends can be
predicted based on the elements involved in the bonding. Electrons occupy “shells” so that the outer, valence electrons are the ones
Bonds formed between two nonmetals tend to be covalent, while bonds formed involved in chemical bonding.
between a metal and a nonmetal tend to be ionic in character. The number of valence electrons shows periodic trends that result in predictable
Alternative conceptions about species involved in a Doymus11 numbers of bonds being formed by an atom.
covalent bond The “octet rule” sufficiently explains the formation of Bergqvist and
Erman14 chemical bonds* Rundgren5
Prodjosantoso et Bergqvist et al.3
al.31 Coll10
There is essentially a continuum of bonding behavior from ionic, through Joki and
polar covalent, and ultimately nonpolar covalent bonding. Aksela17
Dif ferences in electronegativity of elements involved in bonding can be used to Joki et al.18
predict the extent of charge separation when a bond forms.
Luxford and
Covalent bonds have equal sharing of electrons regardless Burrows and Bretz21
of electronegativity differences* Mooring6
Papaphotis and
Luxford and Tsaparlis29
Bretz21
Sendur34
Ö zmen27
Toplis38
Ü nal et al.41
Tsarplis et al.40
Vrabec and
Prokša43 Vrabec and
Proska43
Wang and
Burrow44 Wang and
Burrow44
Valence electrons determine the polarity of a bond* Burrows and
Mooring6 Zohar and
Levy47,48
Ö zmen27
Covalent bonds arise when valence electrons are shared, in pairs, between
Wright and nuclei.
Oliver-Hoyo45
The build up of (negatively charged) electron pairs between (positively charged)
Bonding exists as a dichotomy of ionic and covalent Coll10 nuclei leads to a bonding interaction.
bonds*
Attraction exists between atomic nuclei Shahani and
Luxford and Jenkinson35
Bretz20
No recognition of electrostatic attraction between Sendur34
Ö zmen et al.28 electrons and nuclei in the formation of bonds
a
Bold rows represent subdisciplinary articulation, and italics indicate Wang and
the fine-grained content detail of the anchoring concepts content Burrow44
map. An asterisk next to any alternative conception indicates that it No recognition of the repulsive force that exists between Zohar and
was previously reported in the Ü nal et al.60 review. atomic nuclei in the formation of a bond Levy47,48
Prior to bond formation, shared electrons may be either on one atom involved in
the bond or both. The former distinguishes a coordinate covalent (or dative)
bond.
The most commonly reported alternative conception related
Incorrect identification of bonds as coordinate covalent Erman14
to covalent bonding was the idea that all elements in covalent
Prodjosantoso et
bonds share electrons equally regardless of the difference in al.31
electronegativity.6,21,27,41,43,44 This may be because chemistry a
Bold rows represent subdisciplinary articulation, and italics indicate
learners attend to explicit features of bonding representations the fine-grained content detail of the anchoring concepts content
(e.g., electron position in Lewis dot structures), rather than map. An asterisk next to any alternative conception indicates that it
implicit features such as the specific electronegativity of each was previously reported in the Ü nal et al.60 review.
atom.6,27,45
Several studies identified that students may express
alternative conceptions about the nature and species involved Across our sample, studies repeatedly showed that
in a covalent bond. For instance, Prodjosantoso et al.31 participants tended to use the octet rule to explain the
identified that some secondary students stated that covalent formation of chemical bonds instead of the more scientifically
bonds only existed between two nonmetal atoms. Lastly, with normative idea that bonding occurs from the overall
respect to covalent versus ionic bonding, some studies found electrostatic attraction between atoms. This reliance on the
that students may view bonding as dichotomous in nature, octet rule was found among high school students,21 under-
with bonds being classified as either ionic or covalent. This graduate students,17,18,21,40,43,44,47,48 student teachers,38 and
stands in contrast to the more normative view of bonding as a instructors.3,5,34 Further, studies found that participants used
continuum of interactions.20,28 the octet rule across contexts to explain many types of bonding
Covalent Bonding as Arising from an Electrostatic including ionic, polar covalent, and nonpolar covalent
Attraction. Table 4 shows alternative conceptions noted in bonding.29,38,40,44
the literature regarding the enduring understanding that Some have argued that students’ overreliance on the octet
“Because chemical bonds arise from sharing of negatively rule may come in part from instructor use of the octet rule
charged valence electrons between positively charged nuclei, along with language that suggests that atoms “want” or “need”
the overall electrostatic interaction is attractive.”53 eight electrons.38 This explanation for how and why chemical
2455 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
bonds form may be quite persuasive. Thus, it is not surprising
that even though introductory chemistry students learn more
sophisticated explanations for how and why bonding takes
place (e.g., explanations framed around energetic stability),
research shows that students continue to rely on the octet rule
as an explanation for how and why covalent bonds form.34,44
We also identified a subset of papers in our review that
documented students’ non-normative ideas about how electro-
static interactions between negatively charged electrons and
positively charged nuclei lead to the formation of chemical
bonds. For instance, Zohar and Levy47,48 found that students
may focus only on attractive interactions that hold atoms
together, and may not attend to the repulsive forces that exist
between atomic nuclei. They called this disregard of the
repulsive force the “lacuna of repulsion” and argued that
students are likely to view a chemical bond as a static
attachment of two atoms until they recognize the dynamic
interplay between repulsive and attractive forces.47,48
Lastly, two articles noted that both secondary and university
students often conflated coordinate covalent bonds with
covalent bonds.14,31 For example, in one study it was observed
that students incorrectly identified ammonia as containing a
coordinate covalent bond, a conclusion they arrived at because
nitrogen contains a nonbonding electron pair.14 In that study,
Erman14 posits that unclear language employed in textbooks
and lectures makes it difficult for beginners to discern nuances
between different types of bonding, leading students to
develop these alternative conceptions.
Energy Is Released upon Formation of a Chemical
Bond. Table 5 shows alternative conceptions related to the
enduring understanding “When chemical bonds form, the
overall energy of the bonding atoms is lowered relative to free
atoms, and therefore energy is released.”53
The most commonly reported alternative conception related
to energetics of bonding was the belief that the formation of a
bond requires an input of energy.1,24,28 One proposed reason
for this alternative conception was put forth by Nimmermark
et al.24 They found that when presented with an endothermic
reaction, students at the secondary and university level often
stated that bond formation results in a net uptake of energy,
suggesting that students conflated the energy associated with
bond formation with the concept of reactions being exothermic
or endothermic.24
Some have proposed that instructional analogies may
support students’ development of scientifically normative
ideas about the energetics of bonding. Shahani and Jenkinson35
investigated the effects of using an analogy to a spring to help
university students conceptualize a chemical bond. While it
was found that students’ written description of bonding
energetics improved in accuracy after the intervention,
students’ graphical representations of the potential energy
change that accompanies bond formation did not improve. In
fact, it was observed that students tended to incorporate non-
normative aspects of the analogy into their graphical depictions
of bonding, such as kinetic energy change, perhaps because this
energetic dimension was observed in the intervention.35
Breaking a Chemical Bond Requires Energy. Table 6
shows the alternative conceptions related to the enduring
understanding “To break a chemical bond requires an input of
energy.”53
The notion that the breaking of a bond results in a release of
energy is one of the most frequently documented alterative
conceptions in our sample. This has been observed among
2456
Chemical Education Research
Table 5. Alternative Conceptions Related to Bonding
Organized under Enduring Understanding (C): “When
Chemical Bonds Form, the Overall Energy of the Bonding
Atoms Is Lowered Relative to Free Atoms, and Therefore
Energy Is Released”53,a
The net result of the formation of any stable chemical bond is a lowering
of the energy of the system. If the energy is not lowered, the bond is not
stable.
Not all atoms combine to form stable chemical bonds, but when a bond forms it is
always accompanied by a lowering of the energy.
Bond formation requires the input of energy* Abell and
Bretz1
Nimmermark et
al.24
̈
Ozmen et al.28
Graphical depiction of the potential energy for a chemical bond as a
function of interatomic distance shows both the stabilization for
intermediate distances and repulsion for very short distances.
The energy of interaction between electrons and nuclei is captured graphically by
plotting potential energy as a f unction of distance between atoms.
Incorrect depiction of well shape in Jablonski diagram Shahani and
Jenkinson35
Valence bond theory describes bonds in terms of overlap of electron wave
functions.
The concept of atomic orbital overlap leading to chemical bonding as embodied in
valence bond theory represents a usef ul tool for understanding the basic
components of the quantum mechanics of bonding.
No recognition of the role of orientation in orbital overlap Salah and
Dumon32,33
No recognition of the mathematical nature of an atomic Papaphotis and
orbital Tsaparlis29
Tsaparlis and
Papaphotis39
Sigma and pi bonds are a key way to distinguish chemical bonds, as obtained from
valence bond theory.
No recognition of the symmetry conditions required to Salah and
form sigma (axial overlap) and pi (lateral overlap) bonds Dumon32,33
a
Bold rows represent subdisciplinary articulation, and italics indicate
the fine-grained content detail of the anchoring concepts content
map. An asterisk next to any alternative conception indicates that it
was previously reported in the Ü nal et al.60 review.
Table 6. Alternative Conceptions Related to Bonding
Organized under Enduring Understanding (D): “To Break a
Chemical Bond Requires an Input of Energy”53,a
The energy required to break a chemical bond is the bond dissociation
energy.
Bond dissociation energy is useful at the level of individual molecules; for
calculations on macroscopic quantities, the value used is the bond dissociation
enthalpy.
Bond breaking results in the release of energy* Abell and Bretz1
Dreyfus et al.12,13
Kind19
Nimmermark et al.24
Ö zmen et al.28
Shahani and Jenkinson35
a
Bold rows represent subdisciplinary articulation, and italics indicate
the fine-grained content detail of the anchoring concepts content
map. An asterisk next to any alternative conception indicates that it
was previously reported in the Ü nal et al.60 review.
students (secondary and undergraduate)1,12,13,24,28,35 and
preservice teachers.76 Additionally, Hartley et al.16 found that
chemistry faculty recognized this as a persistent idea among
chemistry students; some faculty even suggested that the lack
of detailed energy-accounting practices in biology courses are a
cause of this alternative conception. However, Dreyfus et
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education
al.12,13 argue that this common alternative conception may be
rooted in the difficulty of reasoning about negative energy, and,
furthermore, assert that students do not “hold” strict
alternative conceptions, rather, they have normative ideas
about bond breaking that are context-dependent and largely
influenced by disciplinary framing of tasks. In a later study,
they examine the common context of ATP reacting to form
ADP resulting in a release of energy and show students
recognized that while the overall process results in a release of
energy, energy is still required to break a chemical bond.13
Dreyfus et al.13 caution that saying students have alternative
conceptions greatly oversimplifies the problem.
Molecular Orbital Theory. Table 7 details alternative
conceptions related to the enduring understanding “A
Table 7. Alternative Conceptions Related to Bonding
Organized under Enduring Understanding (E): “A
Theoretical Construct That Describes Chemical Bonding
Utilizes the Construction of Molecular Orbitals for the
Bond Based on Overlap of Atomic Orbitals on the
Constituent Atoms”53,a
Molecular orbital theory describes chemical bonds via molecular orbitals
derived from atomic orbitals.
Hybrid atomic orbitals are usef ul in describing bonding, particularly for organic
molecules.
No recognition that hybridized orbitals are equivalent Salah and
Dumon32
Atomic orbitals remain unchanged following hybridization Salah and
Dumon32,33
Hybridization involves the combination of atomic orbitals Salah and
from different atoms Dumon32,33
Atomic orbitals have lower or the same energy as Salah and
molecular orbitals Dumon33
a
Bold rows represent subdisciplinary articulation, and italics indicate
the fine-grained content detail of the anchoring concepts content
map.
theoretical construct that describes chemical bonding utilizes
the construction of molecular orbitals for the bond based on
overlap of atomic orbitals on the constituent atoms.”53
We found one set of authors who had explored under-
graduate students’ ideas about molecular orbital theory related
concepts including atomic orbitals and hybridization32,33 The
authors documented several non-normative conceptions about
hybridization of atomic orbitals, such as the idea that the
orbitals resulting from hybridization are not equivalent, and
that atomic orbitals remain unchanged following hybrid-
ization.32 They noted that undergraduate students’ concep-
tions of hybridization often involved redistribution, transfer,
and excitation of electrons across the atomic orbitals of
different atoms (in contrast to hybridization of a single atom’s
atomic orbitals). Furthermore, Salah and Dumon33 docu-
mented students’ tendency to overlook the energetics
associated with atomic and molecular orbitals. Notably, they
found that students did not typically recognize that the
bonding molecular orbital is lower in energy than the atomic
orbitals.
Bond Multiplicity in Covalent Compounds. Table 8
presents alternative conceptions related to bond multiplicity,
notably the enduring understanding “Covalent bonds can be
categorized based on the number of electrons (pairs) shared.
The most common categories are single, double, and triple
bonds.”53
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Chemical Education Research
Table 8. Alternative Conceptions Related to Bonding
Organized under Enduring Understanding (F): “Covalent
Bonds Can Be Categorized Based on the Number of
Electrons (Pairs) Shared; The Most Common Categories
Are Single, Double, and Triple Bonds”53,a
Single bonds share one pair of electrons, double bonds share two pairs of
electrons, triple bonds share three.
Bond length decreases as the number of shared pairs increases.
No recognition that bond length depends on factors such as Erman14
number of bonding electrons
No recognition of the role of attraction and repulsion in Zohar and
determining bond length Levy47,48
a
Bold rows represent subdisciplinary articulation, and italics indicate
the fine-grained content detail of the anchoring concepts content
map.
Across multiple studies, Zohar and Levy47,48 and Erman14
documented students’ difficulty reasoning about bond length at
the secondary and university level, respectively. For instance,
Erman14 noted that chemistry learners often did not recognize
the role of attraction and repulsion in the determination of
bond length. As possible contributing factors to such
difficulties, Erman14 posited that the presentation of chemical
bonding during instruction and in textbooks may lack attention
to the role of electrostatic interactions in the determination of
bond length.
Formation of Metallic Bonds. Table 9 shows the
alternative conceptions regarding the enduring understanding
Table 9. Alternative Conceptions Related to Bonding,
Organized under Enduring Understanding (G): “Metallic
Bonding Arises in Many Solids and Fundamentally Involves
the Sharing of Valence Electrons among Many Positively
Charged ‘Cores’ Over Extended Distances”53,a
A simple model of metallic bonding invokes the concept of a “sea of
electrons” that move relatively freely amid the positively charged cores.
Metallic bonding involves interaction between metal atoms, Acar and
not cations and electrons* Tarhan2
Cheng and
Gilbert8
Spatial distribution of delocalized electrons involves electrons Cheng and
surrounding the entire lattice* Gilbert8
Metals conduct electricity because they have positive and Acar and
negative ions Tarhan2
Metals are malleable because of structural rearrangement Acar and
only, not electrostatic forces Tarhan2
Cheng and
Gilbert8
Coll10
a
Bold rows represent subdisciplinary articulation, and italics indicate
the fine-grained content detail of the anchoring concepts content
map. An asterisk next to any alternative conception indicates that it
was previously reported in the Ü nal et al.60 review.
“Metallic bonding arises in many solids and fundamentally
involves the sharing of valence electrons among many
positively charged “cores” over extended distances.”53
A few studies in our sample focused on students’ ideas
related to metallic bonding.2,7,8,10 Alternative conceptions
noted were related to the structure and nature of metallic
bonding and its implications for properties such as
conductivity and malleability. For example, in discussing
malleability students focused on structural rearrangement,
without considering the electrostatic forces that are responsible
for this property.2,8,10 It is worth noting that Cheng and
2457 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
colleagues7,8 propose that part of the challenge with metallic
bonding is due to coordinating and progressing through a
series of ontologically different and increasingly sophisticated
models presented throughout students’ education. They found
that it was easiest for students to conceptualize metallic
bonding first as an entity (e.g., metallic bonding as a simple-
particulate structure of metal cations and electrons), then as a
sequential process (e.g., metallic bonding as metal atoms losing
electrons), and finally as an emergent process (e.g., metallic
bonding as arising from the simultaneous and reciprocal
electrostatic attraction between each metal cation and
electron). In addition, Cheng and Gilbert8 observed that
some students’ conceptualizations may be described as hybrid
models involving aspects of different models of metallic
bonding.8
Conflating the Types of Bonding. One prevalent theme
that emerged from this review of the literature was that
students often conflate different types of bonding. While this
theme has been alluded to in multiple tables presented thus far,
we summarize research findings related to this theme in Table
10 below.
Table 10. Alternative Conceptions Related to the Conflation
of Specific Bonding Concepts Across Different Types of
Bondinga
Conflation of the species involved in different types of Acar and Tarhan2
bonding*
Cokelez et al.9
Prodjosantoso et
al.31
Sendur34
Toplis38
Tsaparlis et al.40
Ü nal et al.41
Conflation of different types of bonding* Acar and Tarhan2
Luxford and
Bretz20,21
Nyachwaya et al.25
Ö zmen27
Tsaparlis et al.40
Vrabec and
Prokša43
a
An asterisk next to any alternative conception indicates that it was
previously reported in the Ü nal et al.60 review.
Several authors noted that students tend to conflate species
involved in bonding. For instance, some students framed ionic
bonding as occurring between either metals2 or nonmetals,34
while others asserted that hydrochloric acid31 and carbon
dioxide41 have ionic bonds. Additionally, others asserted that
ions are involved in covalent bonding.31,40 According to
Cokelez et al.,9 the reason students may attribute a covalent
bond to an ionic species (e.g., sodium chloride) is a result of
the order in which bonding is taught in the classroom: students
are often taught covalent bonding first, and they may assign
priority to this type of bonding. Overall, many of these findings
were idiosyncratic in nature and were commonly noted in
specific scenarios such as the identification of bonding in
individual compounds like sodium chloride9,38 or hydrochloric
acid.31,38
Aside from conflation of species involved, some of the
studies also noted that students tend to conflate concepts
related to different types of bonding. For instance, it was found
2458
Chemical Education Research
that both secondary and undergraduate students sometimes
noted that ionic bonding and covalent bonding both involved
the sharing of electrons20,21 and that electrons are shared in
ionic bonds but transferred in covalent bonds.27 It has also
been found that students produce similar representations to
explain both ionic and covalent bonding, such as ionic and
covalent bonds being drawn with line bonds which are
generally only used to represent covalently bonded species.20,25
The Role of the Instructor and Curriculum
The second strand of research identified in our sample was
related to the role of the instructor and curriculum in students’
understanding of bonding and bonding models. This strand
included studies that involved teaching interventions aimed at
improving students’ ideas related to chemical bonding.
Investigation of Instructors’ Ideas and Textbook
Presentation of Bonding. Ten studies in our sample
explicitly focused on chemistry instructors’ ideas related to
chemical bonding or the presentation of content in chemistry
textbooks, with some studies focusing on
both.3−5,14,16,17,23,24,30,42 In some cases, the studies presented
data from instructors and content experts as part of developing
or evaluating a modified curriculum,17,23 but in most cases the
research focused on the relationship between instructors/
textbooks and student understanding.3,4,14,16,24,42
Teaching Interventions. In this section, we discuss
studies involving interventions related to chemical bonding
that could provide useful strategies for teaching. Some of these
interventions involved augmenting instruction with coopera-
tive learning2,11,22 or technology,15,27,28,35,47 whereas others
focused on developing a modified curriculum for chemical
bonding by altering the framing of the content.17,18,22,23,40
Studies are grouped according to their focus and are briefly
described in Table 11.
Regarding studies that focused on supplementing instruction
with cooperative learning or technology, these studies most
often involved quantitative assessments of the efficacy of an
intervention.2,11,15,27,28,35,47 For example, two studies found
that when comparing student scores on assessment questions
following a cooperative learning intervention, there was a
statistically significant difference between the experimental and
control groups with fewer alternative conceptions expressed
among students who engaged in cooperative learning.2,11
These results are consistent with the broader literature base
that has shown the positive impact of active learning
interventions on students’ learning.77
Other studies used qualitative methods to examine the
impact of interventions on students’ learning. In another study
that involved cooperative learning, Mendonça and Justi22 used
a case-study approach to qualitatively analyze students’ group
work in the context of collaborative activities designed to focus
on the nature and purpose of models related to ionic bonding.
On the basis of their analysis, Mendonça and Justi22
demonstrated the utility of model-based activity design to
help students engage in the development of models, including
consideration of the limitations of models and using models to
construct explanations. There were also two studies that used a
combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to
demonstrate the utility of computer-based simulations in
supporting students’ reasoning.35,47
Studies in our sample related to modified curricula focused
on the nature of curricular materials, including the organization
of concepts, the general framing employed, and the selection of
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Chemical Education Research

Table 11. Summary of Teaching Interventions in the Review Sample

focus paper description
Cooperative Acar and Students worked in groups to complete worksheets related to metallic bonding.
Learning Tarhan2
Doymus11 Students had a “home group” where they were assigned specific topics. Then they learned their individual topics in a “jigsaw
group” and came back to teach the topics to their “home group”.
Mendonça and Students worked in groups on model-based activities designed to focus on the nature and purpose of models.
Justi22
Technology Frailich et al.15 Students worked in groups on computer-based activities.
Ö zmen27 Students worked on individual computer-based activities.
Ö zmen et al.28 Students were provided computer-based animations and a conceptual change text that explicitly addressed previously reported
alternative conceptions.
Shahani and Students worked in groups using computer-based, interactive simulations.
Jenkinson35
Zohar and Students worked on individual computer-based, interactive simulations.
Levy47
Modified Joki and Curriculum designed using extant research, focused on key principles that emphasize the similarities and relationships among
Curriculum Aksela17 Joki different types of bonds, including the role of electrostatic interactions and framing bonding as a continuum.
et al.18
Nahum et al.23
Tsaparlis et al.40 Modified textbook (enriched text) designed using extant research, focused on providing students additional information to
address previously reported challenges with chemical bonding.

which specific ideas to emphasize for students. For example,
Nahum et al.23 developed an alternative approach for teaching
chemical bonding. Their work draws a connection between
different types of bonding by framing the discussion around
electrostatic interactions and presenting the phenomenon of
chemical bonding as a continuum of increasing bond strengths
(i.e., van der Waals interactions, hydrogen bonds, covalent
bonds, polar covalent bonds, ionic bonds). Joki and
colleagues18 built on this work and described a similar
approach toward teaching chemical bonding. They found
that students who learned using the modified curriculum were
able to develop an electrostatic-centric view of chemical
bonding. However, in subsequent courses that did not involve
the modified curriculum, students reverted to a conceptualiza-
tion of chemical bonding that overemphasized the octet rule,
perhaps in part due to instructors’ framing of the content.17
• Curricular knowledge: An instructor’s knowledge of how
to contextualize a subject within the broader curriculum;
includes knowledge of the goals and guiding principles
of a curriculum, as well as knowledge of the ways in
which topics relate to one another within the curriculum.
• Content knowledge: An instructor’s knowledge of the
disciplinary concepts to be taught.
• Assessment knowledge: An instructor’s knowledge of how
to effectively assess student learning; includes knowledge
related to the design of formative and summative
assessments in a course, and ways to effectively assess
students’ topic-specific ideas.
• Pedagogical knowledge: An instructor’s knowledge of
specific strategies or activities to support students’
learning of a particular topic.

■
DISCUSSION
In this review we have summarized the 2006−2020 literature
addressing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical
bonding. We have outlined two main strands of research
arising from this work: research pertaining to students’
knowledge of bonding and bonding models, and research
addressing instructor and curricular influences on students’
learning of bonding. We now discuss key themes emerging
from the review alongside implications for future research and
practice. To structure our discussion below, we organized the
key themes around the professional knowledge bases that
inform pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Although
different models of pedagogical content knowledge have
been used and developed over the years, the central idea is
that PCK reflects the multiple interacting types of knowledge
that are relevant for instruction, acknowledging that educators
need more than content-specific knowledge to teach
effectively.78,79 As highlighted by Rodriguez and Towns,80
the refined consensus model of PCK offers a useful way to
frame conclusions and implications in a way that directly
connects research to practice. In the following sections, we
connect key themes from the review to the five knowledge
bases within the refined consensus model of PCK.79 These
include the following:
2459
• Knowledge of students: An instructor’s knowledge of the
ways students approach learning and how their knowl-
edge develops; includes knowledge of common
challenges students have with a concept.
Importantly, when instructors increase their understanding
related to these knowledge basesfor instance, by becoming
aware of problems students commonly encounter related to
chemical bonding (i.e., knowledge of students)they are
expanding their PCK and can use this knowledge to inform
their teaching.4
Curricular Knowledge
Within the PCK model, curricular knowledge is focused on the
overall structure of a curriculum, including its goals, guiding
principles, and the ways in which topics relate to one another
across a course or multiple courses.79 Nahum et al.23 discuss
how the traditional approach for teaching chemical bonding
causes students to memorize key phrases and facts instead of
developing a deeper conceptual understanding of the topic.
Across our sample, multiple articles detailed reframed curricula
that focused on addressing some of the common alternative
conceptions relevant to bonding and emphasized the
importance of concepts such as electrostatic interactions and
the continuum of bonding.17,18,40 While this work has shown
the effect of changing the teaching of bonding specifically, we
also want to call attention to the reformed curricula in the
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
chemistry community that have transformed the entire general
chemistry sequence.
For example the CLUE: Chemistry, Life, the Universe, and
Everything curriculum developed by Cooper and Klymkow-
sky81 focuses on centering content instruction around learning
progressions addressing big ideas that include bonding to
promote a more coherent understanding of chemistry
concepts. Similarly, the Chemical Thinking curriculum
developed by Talanquer and Pollard82 takes the focus away
from learning a body of knowledge about chemistry and shifts
it toward “chemistry as a way of thinking”. Instead of being
topic-driven, this curriculum is guided by fundamental
questions such as “How do we determine structure?” These
questions allow students to discuss topics like covalent
bonding in the context of determining molecular structure
and interpreting data, mirroring how practicing chemists think.
Overall, reformed curricula such as CLUE and Chemical
Thinking have been shown to be successful at positively
impacting student learning83−85 and offer new approaches for
introducing chemical bonding in a way that emphasizes its
fundamental importance and connection to other topics within
the field of chemistry. In addition to implementing these
curricula in the classroom, we suggest their use as the
instructional context for subsequent research on students’ ideas
related to chemical bonding.
Content Knowledge
Content knowledge represents the disciplinary subject knowl-
edge held by the instructor relevant to teaching tasks. Research
analyzing the role of instruction and teachers’ knowledge is
critical because of the way it enables us to contextualize the
findings of studies exploring student understanding of bonding
and bonding models. Several studies in our sample addressed
instructors’ content knowledge related to bonding.5,16,17,23,42,86
Overall, these studies highlight the ways in which instructor
knowledge may influence student development of normative
ideas about bonding and bonding models. For example, when
instructors overuse the octet rule and use language suggesting
that atoms “want” or “need” an octet, it is perhaps not
surprising when students do the same.4
We note that the studies we investigated exclusively
addressed instructor knowledge in the context of traditional
learning environments. As such, we argue that more work is
needed to examine the influence of reform-oriented curricula
on instructors’ reasoning and teaching about topics such as
chemical bonding. Institutions that have adopted reform-
oriented curricula such as CLUE: Chemistry, Life, the Universe,
and Everything curriculum81 and the Chemical Thinking
curriculum82 may provide an opportunity to assess the impact
of reform-oriented curricula on how instructors understand
and teach about bonding. For instance, such studies could
examine how instructors are implementing instructional
interventions87 or transformed curricula and how instructors
are working to address students’ difficulties with the concept of
bonding.
Assessment Knowledge
Assessment knowledge encompasses the knowledge related to
the design of formative and summative assessments in a course,
keeping in mind that effectively assessing students’ ideas
should be topic-specific.79 While the curricular changes noted
above can be transformational for the overall content focus of a
course, assessments are an integral factor in these changes
because they convey strong messages about what is important
2460
Chemical Education Research
to learn.88,89 Because assessments are reflective of the goals for
a course, there must be significant alignment between the
content focus of a course and what knowledge is assessed.
Nahum et al.23 have argued that traditional assessments are
focused on revealing students’ alternative conceptions but are
not able to indicate students’ understanding of underlying
principles. For example, among the studies in our sample,
assessments were used to evaluate ideas about bonding-specific
ideas such as “The Truth About Ionic Bonding”37,42 and the
“Bonding Representation Inventory”;21,43 however, these
assessments tend to be framed around identifying specific
alternative conceptions such as the ones documented in this
review. Moreover, Nahum et al.23 found that students can still
perform well on typical assessments because they can produce
the correct, declarative facts without needing to understand the
underlying conceptual basis for their answers. Indeed,
chemistry assessments are commonly focused on a collection
of disconnected facts, but as an alternative, it has been argued
that assessments that require students to draw connections
between disciplinary core ideas such as bonding and energy,
rather than produce isolated facts about bonding, would result
in a more sophisticated and coherent understanding of
chemistry.88 We encourage instructors and researchers to go
beyond assessments designed to elicit facts about bonding and
instead move toward assessments that require students to use
knowledge of disciplinary core ideas such as bonding to engage
in science practices (e.g., constructing explanations).51
To illustrate this type of assessment, Cooper et al.88 provide
an example task (Box 3 of the referenced work), related to
bonding, that leverages the disciplinary core ideas of energy and
electrostatic and bonding interactions to get students thinking
about the energy required to break a bond. While this example
is related to a common alternative conception about the energy
change associated with breaking chemical bonds, the primary
goal is not to determine whether students express this
alternative conception. Instead, the task requires that students
connect ideas about energy associated with a chemical reaction
to ideas about bonding in order to draw conclusions about the
energetics of bond breaking. This serves as a useful example of
how to build on the existing research on alternative
conceptions in a way that does not aim to “replace” students’
ideas, but rather engage them in making connections between
important ideas such as energy and bonding.
Pedagogical Knowledge
Pedagogical knowledge relates to knowledge of effective
teaching practices, including the general instructional princi-
ples and strategies instructors adopt when teaching a particular
topic.79 Included in pedagogical knowledge is the way in which
instructors use resources to inform their instruction. For
example, two of the articles in our sample noted that
instructors can rely heavily on textbooks when developing
lesson plans, which can be a problem because textbooks may
perpetuate non-normative thinking such as the emphasis of the
octet rule as a driving force in bonding.3,5 Therefore, use of
materials like the reformed textbook40 and curricula17,18
outlined in this review can serve as a useful tool for developing
lesson material around the concept of bonding while focusing
on key principles like electrostatic interactions and bonding as
a continuum.
Moving beyond simply being aware of the difficulties
students may have, pedagogical knowledge about chemical
bonding involves ways to address and guide students through
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
these challenges. Within the chemistry education research
community, research aims to provide evidence-based sugges-
tions for instructors and inform the teaching and learning of
chemistry. Articles in this review have shown the utility of
implementing cooperative learning and computer-based
activities to improve student learning on the topic of chemical
bonding.2,11,15,22,27,28,35,47 This work aligns with the extensive
research showing the efficacy of active learning pedagogies in
increasing student performance and decreasing the achieve-
ment gap in STEM between traditional students and students
in underrepresented groups.77,90,91 As this work has shown,
incorporating more collaborative, active pedagogies into the
classroom helps to meaningfully engage students in the content
and improve their learning overall. Therefore, we encourage
instructors to implement student-centered learning to trans-
form the way the concept of chemical bonding is taught.
Knowledge of Students
Knowledge of students centers on the ways students approach
learning and the ways their knowledge develops.79 The
majority of the research studies included in our review focused
on documenting students’ challenges related to chemical
bonding, and thus contributes to instructors’ knowledge of
students. These studies typically focused on students’ ideas
about specific types of bonding in introductory chemistry (i.e.,
ionic and covalent bonding). A smaller fraction of studies
investigated the ways that students reason with and about
advanced models of bonding, such as molecular orbital theory
and valence bond theory.32,33 Moreover, we observed that over
one-third of the alternative conceptions reported here have
been previously reported in the 2006 review by Ü nal et al.60
This observation suggests that we may be reaching saturation
for the emergence of new themes within alternative
conception-driven work, particularly in the context of students’
ideas about covalent and ionic bonding at the high school and
general chemistry level.
Far fewer studies addressed students’ ideas about advanced
bonding models such as molecular orbital theory, and thus
further research in the context of upper division courses such
as inorganic and physical chemistry may support our
understanding of how students’ thinking about bonding
evolves. We believe this to be a fruitful direction given that
constructing and using models is an important scientific
practice for chemistry and STEM fields more broadly. We posit
that chemical bonding is a topic particularly well suited for
investigating how students engage with epistemic ideas about
models and modeling, such as the idea that there can be
multiple models for explaining the same phenomena. This is
important because research suggests that explicit instruction
about the nature and purpose of models may be a route toward
supporting students’ use of models to construct explanations
and predictions for bonding-related phenomena.22
In the reviewed studies, alternative conceptions were
typically framed as strongly held, stable cognitive structures
that differ from those of experts. Such framing implies that it is
the job of instructors to identify and replace students’ non-
normative ideas.92 In contrast, there has been a movement
toward recognizing the dynamic and highly contextualized
nature of knowledge.93 This perspective suggests focusing on
the way that students’ knowledge is structured and the ways in
which we can leverage students’ productive ideas to support
learning. It is well established that theoretical commitments
influence the framing of a study,94 and as a result the
2461
Chemical Education Research
conclusions that can be drawn from the data.95−98 Therefore,
we suggest alternative theoretical assumptions for examining
students’ ideas about bonding (e.g., the knowledge-in-pieces
perspective or resources perspective)92,95,99 may enable us to
identify more targeted approaches to supporting students’
learning of bonding concepts. By reflecting on our theoretical
assumptions, we can adopt new approaches to address modern
challenges, advancing our field to improve the teaching and
learning of chemistry.
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Nicole M. Becker − Department of Chemistry, University of
Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, United States; orcid.org/
0000-0002-1637-714X; Email: nicole-becker@uiowa.edu
Authors
Kevin H. Hunter − Department of Chemistry, University of
Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, United States; orcid.org/
0000-0002-7341-471X
Jon-Marc G. Rodriguez − Department of Chemistry,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, United States;
orcid.org/0000-0001-6949-6823
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Becker Research group
and Max Thecat for their continued support and valuable
feedback during the writing of this manuscript.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Abell, T. N.; Bretz, S. L. Dissolving Salts in Water: Students’
Particulate Explanations of Temperature Changes. J. Chem. Educ.
2018, 95 (4), 504−511.
(2) Acar, B.; Tarhan, L. Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’
Understanding of Metallic Bonding. Res. Sci. Educ. 2008, 38 (4), 401−
420.
(3) Bergqvist, A.; Drechsler, M.; De Jong, O.; Rundgren, S.-N. C.
Representations of Chemical Bonding Models in School Textbooks -
Help or Hindrance for Understanding? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013,
14 (4), 589−606.
(4) Bergqvist, A.; Drechsler, M.; Rundgren, S.-N. C. Upper
Secondary Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Chemical Bonding
Models. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2016, 38 (2), 298−318.
(5) Bergqvist, A.; Rundgren, S.-N. C. The Influence of Textbooks on
Teachers’ Knowledge of Chemical Bonding Representations Relative
to Students’ Difficulties Understanding. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017,
35 (2), 215−237.
(6) Burrows, N. L.; Mooring, S. R. Using Concept Mapping to
Uncover Students’ Knowledge Structures of Chemical Bonding
Concepts. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16 (1), 53−66.
(7) Cheng, M. M. W.; Oon, P.-T. Understanding Metallic Bonding:
Structure, Process and Interaction by Rasch Analysis. Int. J. Sci. Educ.
2016, 38 (12), 1923−1944.
(8) Cheng, M. M. W.; Gilbert, J. K. Students’ Visualization of
Metallic Bonding and the Malleability of Metals. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2014,
36 (8), 1373−1407.
(9) Cokelez, A.; Dumon, A.; Taber, K. S. Upper Secondary French
Students, Chemical Transformations and the “Register of Models”: A
Cross-sectional Study. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2008, 30 (6), 807−836.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
(10) Coll, R. K. Chemistry Learners’ Preferred Mental Models for
Chemical Bonding. J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 2008, 5 (1), 22−47.
(11) Doymus, K. Teaching Chemical Bonding through Jigsaw
Cooperative Learning. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2008, 26 (1), 47−57.
(12) Dreyfus, B. W.; Geller, B. D.; Gouvea, J.; Sawtelle, V.; Turpen,
C.; Redish, E. F. Ontological Metaphors for Negative Energy in an
Interdisciplinary Context. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2014, 10 (2),
020108.
(13) Dreyfus, B. W.; Sawtelle, V.; Turpen, C.; Gouvea, J.; Redish, E.
F. Students’ Reasoning about “High-Energy Bonds” and ATP: A
Vision of Interdisciplinary Education. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
2014, 10 (1), 010115.
(14) Erman, E. Factors Contributing to Students’ Misconceptions in
Learning Covalent Bonds. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2017, 54 (4), 520−537.
(15) Frailich, M.; Kesner, M.; Hofstein, A. Enhancing Students’
Understanding of the Concept of Chemical Bonding by Using
Activities Provided on an Interactive Website. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2009,
46 (3), 289−310.
(16) Hartley, L. M.; Momsen, J.; Maskiewicz, A.; D’Avanzo, C.
Energy and Matter: Differences in Discourse in Physical and
Biological Sciences Can Be Confusing for Introductory Biology
Students. BioScience 2012, 62 (5), 488−496.
(17) Joki, J.; Aksela, M. The Challenges of Learning and Teaching
Chemical Bonding at Different School Levels Using Electrostatic
Interactions Instead of the Octet Rule as a Teaching Model. Chem.
Educ. Res. Pract. 2018, 19 (3), 932−953.
(18) Joki, J.; Lavonen, J.; Juuti, K.; Aksela, M. Coulombic Interaction
in Finnish Middle School Chemistry: A Systemic Perspective on
Students’ Conceptual Structure of Chemical Bonding. Chem. Educ.
Res. Pract. 2015, 16 (4), 901−917.
(19) Kind, V. A Degree Is Not Enough: A Quantitative Study of
Aspects of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Chemistry Content
Knowledge. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2014, 36 (8), 1313−1345.
(20) Luxford, C. J.; Bretz, S. L. Moving beyond Definitions: What
Student-Generated Models Reveal about Their Understanding of
Covalent Bonding and Ionic Bonding. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013,
14 (2), 214−222.
(21) Luxford, C. J.; Bretz, S. L. Development of the Bonding
Representations Inventory to Identify Student Misconceptions about
Covalent and Ionic Bonding Representations. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91
(3), 312−320.
(22) Mendonça, P. C. C.; Justi, R. Contributions of the Model of
Modelling Diagram to the Learning of Ionic Bonding: Analysis of a
Case Study. Res. Sci. Educ. 2011, 41 (4), 479−503.
(23) Nahum, T. L.; Mamlok-Naaman, R.; Hofstein, A.; Krajcik, J.
Developing a New Teaching Approach for the Chemical Bonding
Concept Aligned with Current Scientific and Pedagogical Knowledge.
Sci. Educ. 2007, 91 (4), 579−603.
(24) Nimmermark, A.; Ö hrström, L.; Mårtensson, J.; Davidowitz, B.
Teaching of Chemical Bonding: A Study of Swedish and South
African Students’ Conceptions of Bonding. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
2016, 17 (4), 985−1005.
(25) Nyachwaya, J. M.; Mohamed, A.-R.; Roehrig, G. H.; Wood, N.
B.; Kern, A. L.; Schneider, J. L. The Development of an Open-Ended
Drawing Tool: An Alternative Diagnostic Tool for Assessing Students’
Understanding of the Particulate Nature of Matter. Chem. Educ. Res.
Pract. 2011, 12 (2), 121−132.
(26) Othman, J.; Treagust, D. F.; Chandrasegaran, A. L. An
Investigation into the Relationship between Students’ Conceptions of
the Particulate Nature of Matter and Their Understanding of
Chemical Bonding. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2008, 30 (11), 1531−1550.
(27) Ö zmen, H. The Influence of Computer-Assisted Instruction on
Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Chemical Bonding and
Attitude toward Chemistry: A Case for Turkey. Comput. Educ.
2008, 51 (1), 423−438.
(28) Ö zmen, H.; Demircioğlu, H.; Demircioğlu, G. The Effects of
Conceptual Change Texts Accompanied with Animations on
Overcoming 11th Grade Students’ Alternative Conceptions of
Chemical Bonding. Comput. Educ. 2009, 52 (3), 681−695.
2462
Chemical Education Research
(29) Papaphotis, G.; Tsaparlis, G. Conceptual versus Algorithmic
Learning in High School Chemistry: The Case of Basic Quantum
Chemical Concepts. Part 2. Students’ Common Errors, Misconcep-
tions and Difficulties in Understanding. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008,
9 (4), 332−340.
(30) Pappa, E. T.; Tsaparlis, G. Evaluation of Questions in General
Chemistry Textbooks According to the Form of the Questions and
the Question-Answer Relationship (QAR): The Case of Intra- and
Intermolecular Chemical Bonding. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12
(2), 262−270.
(31) Prodjosantoso, A. K.; Hertina, A. M.; Irwanto, I. The
Misconception Diagnosis on Ionic and Covalent Bonds Concepts
with Three Tier Diagnostic Test. Int. J. Instr. 2019, 12 (1), 1477−
1488.
(32) Salah, H.; Dumon, A. Conceptual Integration of Hybridization
by Algerian Students Intending to Teach Physical Sciences. Chem.
Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12 (4), 443−453.
(33) Salah, H.; Dumon, A. Conceptual Integration of Covalent Bond
Models by Algerian Students. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15 (4),
675−688.
(34) Sendur, G. Are Creative Comparisons Developed by
Prospective Chemistry Teachers Evidence of Their Conceptual
Understanding? The Case of Inter- and Intramolecular Forces.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15 (4), 689−719.
(35) Shahani, V. M.; Jenkinson, J. The Efficacy of Interactive
Analogical Models in the Instruction of Bond Energy Curves in
Undergraduate Chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17 (2), 417−
428.
(36) Smith, K. C.; Nakhleh, M. B. University Students’ Conceptions
of Bonding in Melting and Dissolving Phenomena. Chem. Educ. Res.
Pract. 2011, 12 (4), 398−408.
(37) Taber, K. S.; Tsaparlis, G.; Nakiboğlu, C. Student Conceptions
of Ionic Bonding: Patterns of Thinking across Three European
Contexts. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34 (18), 2843−2873.
(38) Toplis, R. Probing Student Teachers’ Subject Content
Knowledge in Chemistry: Case Studies Using Dynamic Computer
Models. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008, 9 (1), 11−17.
(39) Tsaparlis, G.; Papaphotis, G. High-school Students’ Conceptual
Difficulties and Attempts at Conceptual Change: The Case of Basic
Quantum Chemical Concepts. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2009, 31 (7), 895−
930.
(40) Tsaparlis, G.; Pappa, E. T.; Byers, B. Teaching and Learning
Chemical Bonding: Research-Based Evidence for Misconceptions and
Conceptual Difficulties Experienced by Students in Upper Secondary
Schools and the Effect of an Enriched Text. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
2018, 19 (4), 1253−1269.
(41) Ü nal, S.; Co, B.; Ayas, A. Secondary School Students’
Misconceptions of Covalent Bonding. J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 2010, 7
(2), 3−29.
(42) Vladušić, R.; Bucat, R. B.; Ožić, M. Understanding Ionic
Bonding - A Scan across the Croatian Education System. Chem. Educ.
Res. Pract. 2016, 17 (4), 685−699.
(43) Vrabec, M.; Prokša, M. Identifying Misconceptions Related to
Chemical Bonding Concepts in the Slovak School System Using the
Bonding Representations Inventory as a Diagnostic Tool. J. Chem.
Educ. 2016, 93 (8), 1364−1370.
(44) Wang, C.-Y.; Barrow, L. H. Exploring Conceptual Frameworks
of Models of Atomic Structures and Periodic Variations, Chemical
Bonding, and Molecular Shape and Polarity: A Comparison of
Undergraduate General Chemistry Students with High and Low
Levels of Content Knowledge. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14 (1),
130−146.
(45) Wright, L. C.; Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. Student Assumptions and
Mental Models Encountered in IR Spectroscopy Instruction. Chem.
Educ. Res. Pract. 2020, 21 (1), 426−437.
(46) Yayon, M.; Mamlok-Naaman, R.; Fortus, D. Characterizing and
Representing Student’s Conceptual Knowledge of Chemical Bonding.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13 (3), 248−267.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
(47) Zohar, A. R.; Levy, S. T. Attraction vs. Repulsion - Learning
about Forces and Energy in Chemical Bonding with the ELI-Chem
Simulation. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2019, 20 (4), 667−684.
(48) Zohar, A. R.; Levy, S. T. Students’ Reasoning about Chemical
Bonding: The Lacuna of Repulsion. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2019, 56 (7),
881−904.
(49) Holme, T. A.; Murphy, K. The ACS Exams Institute
Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map I:
General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (6), 721−723.
(50) College Board. AP Chemistry. https://apcentral.collegeboard.
org/courses/ap-chemistry.
(51) National Research Council (U.S.). A Framework for K-12
Science Education Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas/
Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education
Standards, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education, National Research Council of the National
Academies; The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2012.
(52) Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W. Chemistry, Life, the
Universe & Everything; Michigan State University, 2017.
(53) Holme, T. A.; Luxford, C.; Murphy, K. Updating the General
Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map. J. Chem. Educ. 2015,
92 (6), 1115−1116.
(54) Raker, J.; Holme, T. A.; Murphy, K. The ACS Exams Institute
Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map II:
Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (11), 1443−1445.
(55) Marek, K. A.; Raker, J. R.; Holme, T. A.; Murphy, K. L. The
ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts
Content Map III: Inorganic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (2),
233−237.
(56) Holme, T. A.; Reed, J. J.; Raker, J. R.; Murphy, K. L. The ACS
Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts
Content Map IV: Physical Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (2),
238−241.
(57) Holme, T. A.; Bauer, C.; Trate, J. M.; Reed, J. J.; Raker, J. R.;
Murphy, K. L. The American Chemical Society Exams Institute
Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map V:
Analytical Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (6), 1530−1535.
(58) Loertscher, J.; Green, D.; Lewis, J. E.; Lin, S.; Minderhout, V.
Identification of Threshold Concepts for Biochemistry. LSE 2014, 13
(3), 516−528.
(59) Ö zmen, H. Some Student Misconceptions in Chemistry: A
Literature Review of Chemical Bonding. Journal of Science Education
and Technology 2004, 13 (2), 147−159.
(60) Ü nal, S.; Ç alık, M.; Ayas, A.; Coll, R. K. A Review of Chemical
Bonding Studies: Needs, Aims, Methods of Exploring Students’
Conceptions, General Knowledge Claims and Students’ Alternative
Conceptions. Research in Science & Technological Education 2006, 24
(2), 141−172.
(61) Baltieri, R. S.; Bego, A. M.; Cebim, M. A. Why the Covalent
Bond Is Such a Complex Concept: A Conceptual Profile Proposal.
International Journal of Science Education 2021, 43 (12), 2007−2024.
(62) Graulich, N.; Lewis, S. E.; Kahveci, A.; Nyachwaya, J. M.;
Lawrie, G. A. Writing a Review Article: What to Do with My
Literature Review. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2021, 22 (3), 561−564.
(63) Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altaman, D. G. Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The
PRISMA Statement. PLoS One 2009, 6 (7), 1−6.
(64) Cameron, B. D. Trends in the Usage of ISI Bibliometric Data:
Uses, Abuses, and Implications. portal: Libraries and the Academy
2005, 5 (1), 105−125.
(65) Royal Society of Chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and
Practice. https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-
journals/chemistry-education-research-practice/.
(66) Journal of Chemical Education. https://pubs.acs.org/journal/
jceda8.
(67) Rodriguez, J.-M. G.; Bain, K.; Moon, A.; Mack, M. R.;
DeKorver, B. K.; Towns, M. H. The Citation Index of Chemistry
Education Research in the Journal of Chemical Education from 2008
2463
Chemical Education Research
to 2016: A Closer Look at the Impact Factor. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94
(5), 558−562.
(68) Bain, K.; Moon, A.; Mack, M. R.; Towns, M. H. A Review of
Research on the Teaching and Learning of Thermodynamics at the
University Level. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15 (3), 320−335.
(69) Bain, K.; Towns, M. H. A Review of Research on the Teaching
and Learning of Chemical Kinetics. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17
(2), 246−262.
(70) Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D. G. Reprint
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses:
The PRISMA Statement. Phys. Ther 2009, 89 (9), 873−880.
(71) Mack, M. R.; Hensen, C.; Barbera, J. Metrics and Methods
Used to Compare Student Performance Data in Chemistry Education
Research Articles. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96 (3), 401−413.
(72) Rodriguez, J.-M. G.; Hunter, K. H.; Scharlott, L. J.; Becker, N.
M. A Review of Research on Process Oriented Guided Inquiry
Learning: Implications for Research and Practice. J. Chem. Educ. 2020,
97 (10), 3506−3520.
(73) Teo, T. W.; Goh, M. T.; Yeo, L. W. Chemistry Education
Research Trends: 2004−2013. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15 (4),
470−487.
(74) Taber, K. S. Chemical MisconceptionsPrevention, Diagnosis and
Cure: Classroom Resources; Royal Society of Chemistry, 2002; Vol. II.
(75) Murphy, K.; Holme, T. A.; Zenisky, A.; Caruthers, H.; Knaus,
K. Building the ACS Exams Anchoring Concept Content Map for
Undergraduate Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (6), 715−720.
(76) Kind, V. A Degree Is Not Enough: A Quantitative Study of
Aspects of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Chemistry Content
Knowledge. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2014, 36 (8), 1313−1345.
(77) Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.;
Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases
Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. 2014, 111 (23), 8410−8415.
(78) Shulman, L. S. Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in
Teaching. Educ. Res. 1986, 15 (2), 4−14.
(79) Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’
Knowledge for Teaching Science; Hume, A., Cooper, R., Borowski, A.,
Eds.; Springer Singapore: Singapore, 2019. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-
13-5898-2.
(80) Rodriguez, J.-M. G.; Towns, M. H. Alternative Use for the
Refined Consensus Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge:
Suggestions for Contextualizing Chemistry Education Research. J.
Chem. Educ. 2019, 96 (9), 1797−1803.
(81) Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M. Chemistry, Life, the Universe,
and Everything: A New Approach to General Chemistry, and a Model
for Curriculum Reform. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (9), 1116−1122.
(82) Talanquer, V.; Pollard, J. Let’s Teach How We Think Instead of
What We Know. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11 (2), 74−83.
(83) Williams, L. C.; Underwood, S. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W.;
Cooper, M. M. Are Noncovalent Interactions an Achilles Heel in
Chemistry Education? A Comparison of Instructional Approaches. J.
Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (12), 1979−1987.
(84) Underwood, S. M.; Reyes-Gastelum, D.; Cooper, M. M. When
Do Students Recognize Relationships between Molecular Structure
and Properties? A Longitudinal Comparison of the Impact of
Traditional and Transformed Curricula. Chemistry Education Research
and Practice 2016, 17 (2), 365−380.
(85) Talanquer, V.; Pollard, J. Reforming a Large Foundational
Course: Successes and Challenges. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (12),
1844−1851.
(86) Bergqvist, A.; Drechsler, M.; Rundgren, S.-N. C. Upper
Secondary Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Chemical Bonding
Models. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2016, 38 (2), 298−318.
(87) Matz, R. L.; Fata-Hartley, C. L.; Posey, L. A.; Laverty, J. T.;
Underwood, S. M.; Carmel, J. H.; Herrington, D. G.; Stowe, R. L.;
Caballero, M. D.; Ebert-May, D.; Cooper, M. M. Evaluating the
Extent of a Large-Scale Transformation in Gateway Science Courses.
Science Advances 2018, 4 (10), No. eaau0554.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Chemical Education Research

(88) Cooper, M. M.; Posey, L. A.; Underwood, S. M. Core Ideas and

Topics: Building up or Drilling Down? J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (5),
541−548.
(89) Stowe, R. L.; Scharlott, L. J.; Ralph, V. R.; Becker, N. M.;
Cooper, M. M. You Are What You Assess: The Case for Emphasizing
Chemistry on Chemistry Assessments. J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98,
2490−2495.
(90) Haak, D. C.; HilleRisLambers, J.; Pitre, E.; Freeman, S.
Increased Structure and Active Learning Reduce the Achievement
Gap in Introductory Biology. Science 2011, 332 (6034), 1213.
(91) Theobald, E. J.; Hill, M. J.; Tran, E.; Agrawal, S.; Arroyo, E. N.;
Behling, S.; Chambwe, N.; Cintrón, D. L.; Cooper, J. D.; Dunster, G.;
Grummer, J. A.; Hennessey, K.; Hsiao, J.; Iranon, N.; Ii, L. J.; Jordt,
H.; Keller, M.; Lacey, M. E.; Littlefield, C. E.; Lowe, A.; Newman, S.;
Okolo, V.; Olroyd, S.; Peecook, B. R.; Pickett, S. B.; Slager, D. L.;
Caviedes-Solis, I. W.; Stanchak, K. E.; Sundaravardan, V.;
Valdebenito, C.; Williams, C. R.; Zinsli, K.; Freeman, S. Active
Learning Narrows Achievement Gaps for Underrepresented Students
in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020, 117 (12), 6476−6483.
(92) Hammer, D. Misconceptions or P-Prims: How May Alternative
Perspectives of Cognitive Structure Influence Instructional Percep-
tions and Intentions. Journal of the Learning Sciences 1996, 5 (2), 97−
127.
(93) diSessa, A. A. A Friendly Introduction to “Knowledge in
Pieces”: Modeling Types of Knowledge and Their Roles in Learning.
In Invited Lectures from the 13th International Congress on
Mathematical Education; Kaiser, G., Forgasz, H., Graven, M.,
Kuzniak, A., Simmt, E., Xu, B., Eds.; ICME-13 Monographs; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, 2018; pp 65−84. DOI: 10.1007/
978-3-319-72170-5_5.
(94) Abraham, M. R. Importance of a Theoretical Framework for
Research. In Nuts and Bolts of Chemical Education Research; Bunce, D.
M., Cole, R. S., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, D.C.,
2008; Vol. 976, pp 47−66. DOI: 10.1021/bk-2008-0976.ch005.
(95) Elby, A. What Students’ Learning of Representations Tells Us
about Constructivism. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 2000, 19 (4), Recommended by ACS
481−502.
(96) Southerland, S. A.; Abrams, E.; Cummins, C. L.; Anzelmo, J.
Understanding Students’ Explanations of Biological Phenomena: The Picture Is Not the Point: Toward Using Representations
Conceptual Frameworks or p-Prims? Sci. Ed. 2001, 85 (4), 328−348. as Models for Making Sense of Phenomena
(97) Gouvea, J. S.; Simon, M. R. Challenging Cognitive Construals: Ryan L. Stowe and Brian J. Esselman
A Dynamic Alternative to Stable Misconceptions. LSE 2018, 17 (2), DECEMBER 01, 2022
ar34. JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION READ
(98) Lira, M.; Gardner, S. M. Leveraging Multiple Analytic
Frameworks to Assess the Stability of Students’ Knowledge in Conceptual Challenges Exhibited by Naı̈ve Undergraduate
Physiology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2020, 18 (3), 1−19. Students in the Context of Atomic Orbital Energy Diagrams
(99) diSessa, A. A.; Sherin, B.; Levin, M. Knowledge Analysis: An
Matthew R. Dorris and Martina A. Rau
Introduction. In Knowledge and Interaction: A Synthetic Agenda for the
JULY 26, 2022
Learning Sciences; diSessa, A. A., Levin, M., Brown, N., Eds.; JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
Routledge: New York, NY, 2016; pp 30−71. READ

How Participation in a Research Experiences for

Undergraduate Program Transforms Chemistry and
Biochemistry Majors’ Understanding of Research and Sci...
Helena Kolon and Patricia Ann Mabrouk
JUNE 09, 2022
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION READ

Improving the Understanding of Chemistry by Using the

Right Words: A Clear-Cut Strategy to Avoid Misconceptions
When Talking about Elements, Atoms, and Molecules
Miguel Reina, Antonio Reina, et al.
JULY 08, 2022
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION READ

Get More Suggestions >

2464 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 2451−2464