Conceptualization of the Mole: An Argument for a Refined Conception of

the Mole for Effective Teaching of Stoichiometry

Stephen Andrew Malcolm1, Marissa Rollnick 2, & Madlivane Elizabeth Mavhunga 3

1
MSc in Science Education Programme, Wits School of Education, University of the
Witwatersrand, South Africa. 2,3 Marang Centre for Maths and Science Education, University
of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.
1
stephen@moolman.co.za, 2Marissa.Rollnick@wits.ac.za, 3Elizabeth.Mavhunga@wits.ac.za
Presented as a Short Paper at the 22nd Annual Conference of SAARMSTE. 13 – 16 January 2014,
at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Abstract
This paper is a concept paper reflecting on the conceptualization of the concept of a ‘mole’ in the
literature. The focus of this paper is to problematize the conceptualization of the mole concept in
the literature and argues for a refined conception. The mole concept and reaction stoichiometry
are two domains within chemistry, taught at secondary school level that learners generally tend to
find problematic (Huddle & Pillay, 1996). Learners that move on to study chemistry at a tertiary
level tend to lack the necessary proficiency and basis for success and generally perform poorly
despite these topics being covered in the secondary school curriculum. This could possibly be
attributed to a poor subject knowledge base and pedagogical content knowledge. Some indicators
in teaching practice of teachers with low levels of content knowledge include expressing the same
alternative conceptions as those held by learners. Teachers’ content knowledge is important for
developing conceptual understanding. Furió et al. (2000) state that good teaching of a subject
requires teachers to have excellent knowledge of the concepts and theories of the discipline they
are teaching.

Possessing content knowledge is therefore a key component of developing PCK and hence
effective teaching. In the literature it is evident that the mole concept is poorly conceptualised by
a majority of teachers and often incorrectly defined in a large portion of school textbooks thereby
preventing proper comprehension by learners. The misconceptions and difficulties in
stoichiometry are related to learners’ conception of the mole (Novick & Menis, 1976; Lazonby et
al., 1982;; Tullberg et al., 1994). According to Strömdahl et al. (1994) learners’ conception of the
mole is a reflection of the educator’s conception and of the conception presented in textbooks.
The conceptualization of the mole, a central concept in chemistry and important in stoichiometry
(Klob, 1978), is essential in the transformation of a teachers’ subject matter knowledge into forms
that are accessible to learners and therefore effective teaching of this concept (Geddis & Wood,
1997).

Teachers’ conceptions of the mole have been categorised into four fundamental categories
(Strömdahl et al., 1994). These four categorizations involve the definition of the mole as an SI
unit and three alternative definitions of the mole that are inconsistent with the SI definition for the
amount of substance as an independent physical quantity and of the mole as its unit and therefore
pose problems when teaching the mole (Strömdahl et al., 1994). The four categorizations are
briefly outlined and discussed.

In order to ensure that learners develop the correct conception of the mole it is essential that the SI
approach is used from the outset (Lazonby et al., 1982). Issues of language usage, semantics and
nomenclature are discussed. However it is suggested in order for learners to understand the
concepts they need to be able to correlate the visible chemical changes at the macroscopic level

1
with the mental model of the entities reacting at the sub-microscopic level which learners need to
express symbolically (Bond-Robinson, 2005). Teachers need to ensure that they explicitly link the
mass, molar mass, number of particles and molar volume through the mathematical relationships
and the relevant proportionality constant and not mismatch expressions by using the amount of
substance concept as an equivalent to these terms (Strömdahl et al., 1994; Furió et al., 2000;
Pekdağ & Azizoğlu, 2013).

Conceptualizing the mole as the SI unit for the amount of substance, the correct view as held by
the scientific community, and an understanding of the problems associated with the construction
of these concepts, would indicate high grade knowledge of the concepts and theories of the
discipline of chemistry (Furió et al., 2000). However, the dilemmas associated with
conceptualization of the mole as an SI unit needs to be recognised by teachers and effectively
managed, an indication of curricular saliency (Geddis & Wood, 1997). The usefulness of
regarding the mole as a counting unit, equivalent to Avogadro’s number is essential in
establishing the links between number of elementary particles, mass or volume and the amount of
substance (Klob, 1978; Furió et al., 2000). Using this analogy helps learners understand the
number of particles represented in the mole but it is important to point out the limitations of the
analogy (Staver & Lumpe, 1993).

Introduction
This paper is a concept paper reflecting on the conceptualization of the concept of a ‘mole’ in
the literature. The focus of this paper is to problematize the conceptualization of the mole
concept in the literature and argues for a refined conception. The importance of a refined
conception is due the central role that the mole plays in reaction stoichiometry and the
difficulties learners have in stoichiometry.
Rationale
The mole concept and reaction stoichiometry are two domains within chemistry, taught at
secondary school level that learners generally tend to find problematic (Huddle & Pillay,
1996). Learners that move on to study chemistry at a tertiary level tend to lack the necessary
proficiency and basis for success and generally perform poorly despite these topics being
covered in the secondary school curriculum. The disparity between learners’ lack of
proficiency in stoichiometry at a tertiary level and having being taught the content in
secondary school could possibly be attributed to a poor subject knowledge base and
pedagogical content knowledge (Departments of Basic Education & Higher Education and
Training, 2011).
Some indicators in teaching practice of teachers with low levels of content knowledge include
expressing the same alternative conceptions as those held by learners (van Driel, Verloop &
de Vos, 1998; Gess-Newsome, 1999). Teachers’ content knowledge is important for
developing conceptual understanding. Furió, Azcona, Guisasola and Ratcliffe (2000) state
that good teaching of a subject requires teachers to have excellent knowledge of the concepts
and theories of the discipline they are teaching. Possessing content knowledge is therefore a
key component of developing PCK and hence effective teaching (Hill, Ball & Schilling,
2008).
In the literature it is evident that the mole concept is poorly conceptualised by a majority of
teachers and often incorrectly defined in a large portion of school textbooks thereby
preventing proper comprehension by learners (Cervellati, Montuschi, Perugini, Grimellni-
Tomasini & Balandi, 1982;. Staver & Lumpe, 1993; Krishnan & Howe, 1994; Furió et al.,

2
2000). The misconceptions and difficulties in stoichiometry are related to learners’ conception
of the mole (Novick & Menis, 1976; Lazonby, Morris & Waddington, 1982; Cervellati et al.,
1982; Tullberg, Strömdahl, Lybeck, 1994). According to Strömdahl, Tullberg and Lybeck
(1994) learners’ conception of the mole is a reflection of the educator’s conception and of the
conception presented in textbooks. The conceptualization of the mole, a central concept in
chemistry and important in stoichiometry (Klob, 1978), is essential in the transformation of a
teachers’ subject matter knowledge into forms that are accessible to learners and therefore
effective teaching of this concept (Geddis & Wood, 1997)
Conceptualization of the Mole
Strömdahl et al. (1994) categorised teachers’ conceptions of the mole into four fundamental
categories. The teaching approach when teaching the mole is therefore strongly bound to the
teachers’ conception of the mole (Tullberg et al., 1994). These four categorizations involve
the definition of the mole as an SI unit and three alternative definitions of the mole that are
inconsistent with the SI definition for the amount of substance as an independent physical
quantity and of the mole as its unit and therefore pose problems when teaching the mole
(Dierks, 1981; Strömdahl et al., 1994). According to Strömdahl et al. (1994) the meaning
given to the mole in one of these fundamentals is incompatible with the meaning in another
and if teachers do not consciously separate these fundamentals they will not have a clear
logical comprehension of the mole and neither will their learners.
The International System of Units establishes of a small number of base units, from which
others are derived that are agreed on internally and recommended for use throughout science,
technology and commerce (Taylor & Thompson, 2008). It establishes a system of quantities
and a set of algebraic equations that define the relationships between quantities (Bureau
International des Poids et Mesures, 2006). Each quantity is by convention independent and
has a single SI unit, which are in some instances often interdependent (BIPM, 2006; Taylor &
Thompson, 2008). For example, the SI unit for length, the meter, incorporates the second and
the mole incorporates the kilogram (BPIM, 2006).
Firstly, in the conceptualization of the mole as an SI unit the definition needs to be outlined.
The mole is defined as the amount of substance of specified chemical formula which contains
as many elementary entities as there are carbon atoms in 0.012 kg of carbon-12 (Allsop, 1977;
Klob, 1978; Furió et al., 2000). The elementary entities need to be specified and may be
atoms, molecules, ions, electrons or other entities (Klob, 1978; Furió et al., 2000). According
to Allsop (1977) this definition is equivalent to saying that one mole of any substance is
equivalent to the amount that contains Avogadro’s constant of its particles as defined on the
carbon-12 scale. Avogadro’s constant is the proportionality factor that allows the amount of
substance to be defined in terms of the number of specified elementary particles of that
substance (Nelson, 1991).
There are some aspects of the definition of the mole that are problematic. There is debate
within the scientific community due to deviations from the basic principles for formulating
the units for basic quantities (Aleksandrov, 1989). Firstly, there is no clear and unambiguous
definition for the basic concept amount of substance, the physical quantity for which the mole
is the unit (Aleksandrov, 1989). Secondly, by definition, a unit for a physical quantity should
elucidate how objective quantitative information on the physical quantity can be obtained by
means of measurement but the mole differs in this respect since there is no method or
instrument for measuring the mole (Aleksandrov, 1989). In the definitions of the mole the
existence of a measure of the quantity of substance that is proportional yet distinct from the
number of entities that a sample contains is presupposed but what this measure is and how it

3
differs from the number of entities is not made explicit (Nelson, 1991). As such, according to
Aleksandrov (1989) the mole therefore differs from other fundamental units for physical
quantities and that in its current treatment it is a mathematical quantity. There are currently a
number of proposals to improve the SI scheme of the mole to rectify these issues, the most
relevant of these for this discussion being to refer to ‘n’ as chemical amount and define it as
‘the macroscopic measure of the amount of a substance that corresponds at an atomic level to
the number of specified chemical entities the substance contains’ (Nelson, 2013).
An understanding of what the ‘mole concept’ is essential if learners’ are to solve
stoichiometric problems (Klob, 1978). However there is mounting concern over the past few
decades with the teaching and learning on the concept of mole (Furió et al., 2000). The mole
is a difficult concept for learners to grasp with suggestions that it is beyond the grasp of the
average learner, even with the help of the teacher (Novick & Menis, 1976; Allsop, 1977).
However, according to Nelson (2013) surveys of educators have revealed that many do not
have a proper understanding of it. Furió et al. (2000) suggest that this is possibly due to the
lack of knowledge teachers have of the socio-historical contexts of the concept and the
evolution of its meaning as a mass value due to Ostwald’s scepticism of the atomic-molecular
theory to the SI unit for the amount of substance (Furió et al., 2000).
As has been mentioned, Strömdahl et al. (1994) categorised teachers’ conceptions of the mole
into four fundamental categories, three of which are repeatedly used by teachers despite the
definition of the mole introduced in 1967. According to Dierks (1982) this probably continues
to contribute to the difficulty associated when discussing the mole.
The first category conceptualizes the mole as a portion of substance, a physical, concrete
portion of a substance that has the property of being able to react chemically with other
substances in whole value ratios (Strömdahl et al., 1994). The mole has nothing to do with
physical quantities or units and this conceptualization is often used in textbooks relating to
reaction stoichiometry since few textbooks explain reaction coefficients in terms of a standard
number of particles (Cervellati et al., 1982; Strömdahl et al., 1994).
The second category of teachers’ conceptions of the mole is as an elementary entity of
specific mass (Strömdahl et al.. 1994). The term mole is used synonymously with terms such
as gram-atomic weight, gram-molecule weight and gram-formula weight and one mole is
considered as a unit of mass (Strömdahl et al., 1994). This conceptualization is seen in some
of the erroneous definitions of the mole such as ‘the weight of a substance in grams
numerically equal to its molecular weight’ (Klob, 1978). One possible reason for this is due to
the lack of definiteness in the ‘amount of material’, since it can be considered as a mass and
possible reasons for this are due to the historical development of the concept and gradual
change in the meaning of the mole before the concept was introduced as an SI unit
(Aleksandrov, 1989; Furió et al., 2000).
In the third category of conception of the mole is as a quantity that is equivalent to
Avogadro’s number (Strömdahl et al., 1994). The mole is comparable to numbers such as one
dozen since it is conceptualized as a number that is equivalent to Avogadro’s constant and the
mole is considered only as a counting unit (Nelson, 1991; Tullberg et al., 1994; Strömdahl et
al.. 1994). The problem is the mole as a counting unit and number cannot be the unit for a
measurable physical quantity (Dierks, 1982; Aleksandrov, 1989). This conceptualization of
the mole is seen in the erroneous definitions of the mole such as ‘a unit of number equal to
Avogadro’s number’ (Klob, 1978). Teachers as well as textbooks that hold this
conceptualization of the mole also use the term ‘number of moles’ derived from the
operational definition of the mole as a number of elementary units (Furió et al., 2000). A

4
second problem with this conceptualization of the mole is the lack of understanding that the
magnitude of Avogadro’s number is experimentally, or empirically determined (Cervellati et
al., 1982). Little emphasis is placed in textbooks about the empirical nature of this constant
(Cervellati et al., 1982).
The fourth category of the conceptualization of the mole, which is consistent with the SI
definition, is that the mole is a unit of the physical quantity amount of substance (Strömdahl
et al., 1994). Within this conceptualization, related concepts of mass, volume and number,
used in teaching quantitative aspects of chemical change and their relationship between each
other are taught as functional mathematical relationships using proportionality to the amount
of substance in terms of an elementary entity (Tullberg et al., 1994; Strömdahl et al., 1994).
Within this framework there is a need to clearly distinguish between the amount of substance
(n), mass (m), volume (V) and number of elementary entities (N) (Furió et al., 2000).
Secondly the functional relatedness of the amount of substance with these quantities are
related through operative expressions and various proportionality constants such as molar
mass (M), molar volume (Vm) and Avogadro’s constant (NA) respectively (Strömdahl et al.,
1994; Furió et al., 2000). These operative functions are shown in Figure 1. Within this
framework the term molar mass can be used unambiguously as the mass of that portion of the
substance which is a mole of that substance (Ainley, 1991). This fourth conceptualization
represents the correct, factual content knowledge related to the mole.

Figure 1. The Amount of substance in relation to the quantities mass, volume and number of
elementary entities (Furió et al., 2000)
In order to ensure that learners develop the correct conception of the mole, which has become
a unifying method for measuring the amount of substance when teaching quantitative aspects
of chemistry it is essential that the SI approach is used from the outset (Lazonby et al., 1982;

5
Nelson, 1991). The question is how to effectively convey the correct factual knowledge when
teaching the mole concept?
Some authors suggest that a possible solution to the ‘mole problem’ is to focus on language
usage, nomenclature and semantics. For example, in terms of language usage the use of the
term relative mass of elements, molecules or compounds should be avoided as this is
inconsistent with every-day usage (Ainley, 1991). In terms of nomenclature, in naming the
masses of groups of atoms, molecules and ionic compounds; different terms such as atomic
mass, molecular mass and formula mass are applied depending on the entities that constitute
the substance (Ainley, 1991). Ainley (1991) suggests that the term formula mass be applied
consistently to all collections of atoms and that atomic mass unit (amu) be used as the
standard for expressing the mass of a particle. The term ‘amount of substance’ is often not
used by teachers and hence learners do not identify the mole as an SI unit and learners tend to
identify amount of substance with mass or volume (Furió, Azcona & Guisasola, 2002). In the
context of South Africa, where the majority of learners are English second language learners
the familiar everyday language used in specific contexts in science, where ‘amount’ is often
associated with mass or volume, could be problematic (Johnstone & Selepeng, 2001; Ali &
Ismail, 2006). One way to avoid this problem is for educators to carefully check that the
meaning of ‘amount of substance’ is shared by learners and teachers (Johnstone & Selepeng,
2001). Teachers also need to avoid semantic mistakes due to, what Pekdağ and Azizoğlu
(2013) refer to as a missing concept and define as a ‘concept missing at either the
macroscopic, microscopic or symbolic level of representation’. For example, asking learners
‘how many moles are in 20 g of ammonia’, is missing the macroscopic level of representation
and should rather be phrased as ‘what is the amount of substance in 20 g of the gaseous
compound ammonia’. This would also ensure that these expressions are compatible with the
SI definition as the elementary entities are stated and the amount of substance is expressed by
associating it with the macroscopic form of the substance.
What is of greater importance is the realisation that in chemistry, learners’ thinking is at a
macroscopic level, based on personal experience with objects and events associated with
chemical processes however chemical reactions and the accompanying stoichiometry are
explained by chemists at the invisible level of atoms, ions and molecules (Bond-Robinson,
2005). In order for learners to understand the concepts they need to be able to correlate the
visible chemical changes at the macroscopic level with the mental model of the entities
reacting at the sub-microscopic level which learners need to express symbolically (Bond-
Robinson, 2005). Teachers need to ensure that they explicitly link the mass, molar mass,
number of particles and molar volume through the mathematical relationships and the relevant
proportionality constant and not mismatch expressions by using the amount of substance
concept as an equivalent to these terms (Strömdahl et al., 1994; Furió et al., 2000; Pekdağ &
Azizoğlu, 2013).
The mole concept should be introduced as the relationship between the amount of substance
and number of particles (Allsop, 1977). The mole therefore provides the link, through the
mathematical relationships between the macroscopic properties such as mass or volume and
establishes the relationship between the amount of substance and the number of elementary
particles in order to make the counting of particles easier (Furió et al., 2000). Such a link is
shown in the representation from a chemistry textbook in Figure 2 that can be used in
teaching. Such a link can prove useful for learners and can be easily translated into the mass
of one mole of a substance, moving from the microscopic to the macroscopic and working
with quantities large enough to handle sufficiently by weighing them, converting the mass in

6
grams to the amount of substan
stance in moles, or vice versa (Klob, 1976; Ai
Ainsley, 1991;
Strömdahl et al., 1994).

Figure 2. A representation show

owing the link between macroscopic and sub-micro
icroscopic view
of matter using the mole concep
ept and relationship between amount of substance
ce and number
of particles. Silberberg, (2006).
This approach can be used and d aligned
a to the conceptualization of the mole as the SI unit if
teachers make learners explicitlytly aware that Avogadro’s number is an approxim imation thereby
avoiding misconceptions that hinder
hin their ability to solve stoichiometric problem
lems which are
related to the definition of the mole
mo (Staver & Lumpe, 1993; Strömdahl et al.,, 1994; 19 Tullberg
et al., 1994).
Conceptualizing the mole as thee S SI unit for the amount of substance, the correct
ect view as held
by the scientific community, and an an understanding of the problems associa ciated with the
construction of these concepts, s, would
w indicate high grade knowledge of thee concepts and
theories of the discipline of chem
hemistry (Furió et al., 2000). When teaching off tthe mole, the
conceptualization that is consist
sistent with the SI system is the only way to alleviate the
problems learners have in unders erstanding the amount of substance (Ainley, 199 991). However,
the dilemmas associated with cconceptualization of the mole as an SI unit it needs to be
recognised by teachers and effec ectively managed, an indication of curricular sali
aliency (Geddis
& Wood, 1997). The usefulness ess of regarding the mole as a counting unit, t, eequivalent to
Avogadro’s number is essential tial in establishing the links between numberr oof elementary
particles, mass or volume and d tthe amount of substance (Klob, 1978; Furióó et al., 2000).
However, since Avogadro’s num umber is huge, abstract and theoretical in natu ture it is often
useful to compare the mole too collective
c numbers such as a dozen since the he analogy is a
helpful for learners that struggle
le thinking
t in abstract terms and therefore comprerehend it better
(Klob, 1978; Staver & Lumpe, e, 1993; Strömdahl et al., 1994). Using this aanalogy helps
learners understand the numberr of o particles represented in the mole but it is impo
portant to point
out the limitations of the analoglogy, where the analogy applies to the mole and particularly
where it doesn’t apply such ass highlighting
h that Avogadro’s number is an empirical
em value
determined experimentally (Staveaver & Lumpe, 1993; Piepgrass, 1998).
In conclusion, to ensure learners
ers correctly conceptualize the mole, teachers’ need
ne to ensure
they have the correct conceptualiz
alization of the mole as the SI unit for the amount
nt of substance.
However, it is important to trans
nsform this knowledge in a way learners can gra rasp. Using the
mole as a link between the macro
croscopic and microscopic view of matter is curri
urricular salient.
The challenge is to ensure thattha this done is a manner that avoids develo eloping further
misconceptions.

7
References:

Ainley, D. (1991). Mole Catchers?. Education in Chemistry, 28 (1), 18-19.

Aleksandrov, Y. I. (1989). The Mole: Myths and Reality. Measurement Techniques, 32 (1), 82 –
87.
Ali, M. & Ismail, Z. (2006). Comprehension Level of Non-Technical Terms in Science: Are we
ready for English, Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan, (21), 73 – 83.
Allsop, R. T. (1977). The Place and Importance of the Mole in School Chemistry Courses.
Physics Education, 12, 285 – 288.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes
it Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59 (5), 389 – 407.
Bond-Robinson, J. (2005). Identifying Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) in the Chemistry
Laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6 (2), 83 – 103.
Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BPIM), (2006). The International System of Units. (8th
Ed). Paris, STEDI Media.
Cervellati, R., Montuschi, A., Perugini, D., Grimellni-Toomasini, N. & Balandi, B. P. (1982).
Investigation of Secondary School Students’ Understanding of the Mole Concept in Italy.
Journal of Chemical Education, 59 (10), 852 – 856.
Departments of Basic Education & Higher Education and Training (2011). Integrated Strategic
Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa 2011 –
2025 Technical Report. Pretoria: Department o Basic Education.
Dierks, W. (1981). Teaching the Mole. European Journal of Science Education, 3 (2), 145 – 158.
Furió, C., Azcona, R., Guisasola, J. & Ratcliffe, M. (2000). The Learning and Teaching of the
Concepts ‘Amount of Substance’ and ‘Mole’: A Review of the Literature. Chemistry
Education, 3, 277 - 292.
Furió, C., Azcona, R. & Guisasola, J. (2002). Difficulties in Teaching the Concepts ‘Amount of
Substance’ and ‘Mole’. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1285 – 1304.
Geddis, A. N. & Wood, E. (1997). Transforming Subject Matter and Managing Dilemmas: A
Case Study in Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13 (6), 611 – 626.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary Teachers' Knowledge and Beliefs about Subject matter and
their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 51-94). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L. & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Journal of Research in Mathematics Education,
39 (4), 372 – 400.
Johnstone, A.H. & Selepeng, D. (2001). A Language Problem Revisited, Chemistry Education:
Research and Practice in Europe, 2 (2), 19 – 29.
Kolb, D. (1978). Chemical Principles Revisited: The Mole. Journal of Chemical Education, 55
(11), 728 – 732.
Krishnan, S. R. & Howe, A. C. (1994). The Mole Concept. Journal of Chemical Education, 71,
653 -655.
Lazonby, J. N., Morris, J. E., & Waddington, D. J. (1982). The Muddlesome Mole. Education in
Chemistry, 19 (4), 109-111.
Nelson, P. G. (1991). The Elusive Mole. Education in Chemistry, 28 (4), 103 – 104.
Nelson, P. G. (2013). What is the Mole?. Foundations of Chemistry, 15 (1), 1-9.
Novick, S. & Menis, J. (1976). A Study of Student Perceptions o the Mole Concept. Journal of
Chemical Education 53 (11), 720 – 722.
Pekdağ, B. & Azizoğlu, N. (2013). Semantic Mistakes and Didactic Difficulties in Teaching the
‘Amount o Substance’ Concept: A Useul Model. Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 14, 117 – 128.
Piepgrass, K. W. (1998). Audience-Appropriate Analogies: Collision Theory. Journal of
Chemical Education 75 (6), 724.

8
Staver, J. R. & Lumpe, A. T. (1993). A Content Analysis of the Presentation of the Mole Concept
in Chemistry Textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 321 – 337.
Taylor, B. N. & Thompson, A. (2008). The International System of Units. Washington: National
Institute o Standards and Technology.
Tullberg, A., Strömdahl, H. & Lybeck, L. (1994). Students’ Conceptions of 1 Mol and Educators’
Conceptions of how They Teach ‘the Mole’. International Journal of Science Education,
16, 145 – 156.
Silberberg, M. S. (2006). Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change, (5th Ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Strömdahl, H., Tullberg, A. & Lybeck, L. (1994). The Qualitatively Different Conceptions of 1
Mol. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 17 – 26.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N. & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical
Content Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (6), 673 – 695.