A Review of Solution Chemistry Studies: Insights into Students’ Conceptions

Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2005 ( C© 2005)DOI: 10.1007/s10956-005-2732-3

A Review of Solution Chemistry Studies:Insights into Students’ Conceptions

Muammer Calyk,1,3 Alipasa Ayas,1 and Jazlin V. Ebenezer2

This study has reviewed the last two decades of student conception research in solutionchemistry pertaining to aims, methods of exploring students’ conception, general knowledgeclaims, students’ conceptions and difficulties, and conceptual change studies. The aims of so-lution chemistry studies have been to assess students’ understanding level of solution chem-istry and in some studies compare understanding based on age and year at school or college.The methods of exploring students’ conceptions consisted of interviews, paper and pencil sur-veys (open-ended questions and multiple-choice questions), free writing and drawings andthe validity of these methods have been highlighted. The general knowledge claims synthe-sized in this study are students’ (a) attending to mechanical events, (b) preference for every-day language usage over chemical language, (c) confusing solution chemistry with non-relatedconcepts, (d) lack of sub-microscopic explanation for macroscopic observation, (e) difficultywith visualizing and representing sub-microscopic ideas, (f) difficulty with symbolic represen-tations, (g) inconsistent explanations, (h) development of student understanding with age,and (i) development of conservation reasoning with age. To incorporate students’ concep-tions, conceptual change studies have used strategies such as worksheet, analogy, collabora-tively working with a teacher, hypermedia, and group exploration. The results of conceptualchange studies generally have had a positive impact enabling students to consider their ideasand develop plausible models of solution chemistry. For improvement of student learningin chemistry, this review of solution chemistry studies sheds light on teacher thinking andcapacity building with respect to explicitly incorporating students’ conceptions into chem-istry curriculum; practicing research-based strategies; forging links among types of chemicalknowledge; collaborating for experimental teaching; and conducting further research.

KEY WORDS: chemistry education solution chemistry; students’ conceptions; visual representation;sub-microscopic explanation for macroscopic observation; linking types of chemical knowledge; teacherre-thinking and capacity building.

INTRODUCTION

Chemistry learning requires much intellectualthought and discernment because the content is re-plete with many abstract concepts. Concepts such as

1Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Educa-tion, Fatih Faculty of Education, KTU, 61335 Sogutlu, Trabzon,Turkey.

2Room 299, Teacher Education, Division College of Educa-tion, 441 Education Building, 5425 Gullen Mall, Wayne StateUniversity, Detroit, Michigan 48202.

3To whom correspondence should be addressed; e-mail:muammer38@ hotmail.com,m [email protected]

dissolution, particulate nature of matter, and chem-ical bonding are fundamental to learning chem-istry (Abraham et al., 1992, 1994; Nakhleh, 1992).Unless these fundamentals are understood, topicsincluding reaction rate, acids and bases, electro-chemistry, chemical equilibrium, and solution chem-istry become arduous. Therefore, inquiring into stu-dents’ conceptions of the fundamental concepts inchemistry has been a research focus of several re-searchers in many countries for the last two decades(Stavy, 1988; Peterson and Treagust, 1989; Ebenezerand Gaskell, 1995; Quiles-Pardo and Solaz-Portoles,1995; Ayas and Demirbas, 1997; Ayas and Costu,

29

1059-0145/05/0300-0029/0 C© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

30 Calyk, Ayas, and Ebenezer

2002). Because of our current understanding of whatlearning is, student conception research has becomeeven more meaningful.

Learning has been conceptualized as the interac-tion between the existing knowledge and new knowl-edge (Zietsman and Hewson, 1986). Schmidt (1997)suggests that there is a pattern or logical connec-tion between students’ conceptions and the currentaccepted status of knowledge. In light of this claim,Schmidt argues that conceptions or pieces of intel-lectual thought either reinforce each other or actas barrier for further learning. To overcome obsta-cles in learning, student conception researchers havebeen focusing on identifying and assessing students’“misconceptions” (Helm, 1980), “alternative frame-works” (Driver, 1981), “children’s science” (Gilbertet al., 1982), or “preconceptions” (Novak, 1977).These labels are attached when students’ concep-tions are different from the scientific ideas and ex-planations (Nakhleh, 1992; Taber, 2000; Nicoll, 2001;Ayas et al., 2002). Alternative conceptions may notbe just students’ fault. Chemical knowledge struc-tures, for example, in “combustion,” “physical andchemical change,” and “dissolving and solutions” bytheir very nature lead to alternative conceptions ar-gues Griffiths (1994). Students’ conceptions are con-strained both by the perceiver (learner) and theperceived (chemical phenomena) (Ebenezer, 1991).Thus, learning involves knowledge that needs to berestructured, adapted, rejected, and even discarded(Duschl and Osborne, 2002). If this is the case, weneed to be informed of the value of students’ con-ceptions research. In this article, we use the ex-emplar of solution chemistry, a topic of much re-search (Fensham and Fensham, 1987; Ebenezer andErickson, 1996; Ebenezer, 2001) to amass the criticalknowledge it provides for our understanding of whystudent conception research is important for schoolchemistry learning. Although several studies on stu-dents’ conceptions of solution chemistry and relatedconcepts exist, there has been no review of theseto evaluate what has been accomplished, what theknowledge claims mean, and how these might im-prove teaching and learning.

Because of the importance of solution chemistryin the school chemistry curriculum, the studies havefocused on various concepts: dissolution (Cosgroveand Osborne, 1981; Longden et al., 1991; Abrahamet al., 1992, 1994; Ebenezer and Erickson, 1996; Smithand Metz, 1996), the nature of solutions (Fenshamand Fensham, 1987; Prieto et al., 1989), solubility(Gennaro, 1981; Ebenezer and Erickson, 1996),

energy in solution processes (Ebenezer and Fraser,2001; Liu et al., 2002), effects of temperature andstirring to dissolution of solid in liquid (Blanco andPrieto, 1997), and conservation of mass during disso-lution process (Piaget and Inhelder, 1974; Drıver andRussell, 1982; Holding, 1987); types of solutions—unsaturated, saturated and supersaturated (Pınarbasıand Canpolat, 2003)—and vapor pressure lowering,solubility of a gas in water and the relationship be-tween vapor pressure and boiling point (Pınarbasıand Canpolat, 2003). Solution chemistry studies havealso studied strategies to overcome students’ con-ceptions (Johnson and Scott, 1991; Ebenezer andGaskell, 1995; Taylor and Coll, 1997; Ebenezer, 2001;Kaartinen and Kumpulainen, 2002; Kabapınar et al.,2004). The primary motive for exploring and docu-menting students’ conceptions using various strate-gies is to categorize these in some meaningful formso that teachers may be able to facilitate concep-tual change in appropriate ways. The objective of thisstudy in hand, then, is to evaluate the solution chem-istry studies to see where we are. To this end, we askthe following questions:

Focus Questions

1. What are the aims of students’ conceptions ofsolution chemistry studies?

2. What are the research methods of exploringstudents’ conceptions? Are they valid and re-liable?

3. What are the general knowledge claims?4. What are students’ common conceptions and

difficulties?5. What is the nature of conceptual change

studies?

Significance

A review and synthesis of the solution chemistrystudies have much value to chemistry educationresearchers, teachers, curriculum developers, andpolicy makers. An examination of the aims of eachstudy will reveal the motive of the researchers whoundertook the study. Because the foundation forstudent conception research is the nature of learning,teachers will be able to easily translate the methodsused for research into classroom practice. An outlineof general knowledge claims will inform chemistryteaching. Teachers will be able to incorporate

A Review of Solution Chemistry Studies 31

students’ common conceptions of solution chemistryinto units of study. Pertinent conceptual changestrategies may be developed to accommodate stu-dents’ common conceptions. The conceptual changestudies may indicate models for teachers to explicitlyincorporate students’ conceptions into chemistrycurriculum. Researchers will readily see the statusof solution chemistry studies and may take steps forfurther research in unexplored areas.

Methodology

Based on the research questions for evaluat-ing the solution chemistry studies, we developeda matrix with the following headings: The title ofthe study, the year of the study, aim of the study,research methods for exploring students’ concep-tions, general knowledge claims, students’ commonconceptions and difficulties, and conceptual changestrategies and outcomes. Using these categories, eachsolution chemistry study and related studies were de-scribed within each cell of the matrix. General trendswere apparent. The similarities and differences wereobvious. The unique features of each study wereclearly evident. The matrix was then used to describeand interpret the studies. What follows is an interpre-tive account of the solution chemistry student con-ception research.

The Aims

The purpose of solution of chemistry studies wasto assess students’ conceptions. Some also did com-parative studies based on age and year of study inschool/university (see Table I).

Level of Student Understanding: Roots in Theories

Researchers characterized the level of studentunderstanding rooted in different theoretical frame-works: reasoning ability (Piaget and Inhelder, 1974;Drıver and Russell, 1982; Holding, 1987; Longdenet al., 1991; Abraham et al., 1992, 1994; Smith andMetz, 1996); patterns of content reasoning (Fenshamand Fensham, 1987; Blanco and Prieto, 1997) hi-erarchy of qualitatively different understandings(Ebenezer and Erickson, 1996; Ebenezer and Fraser,2001); and structural characteristics (Liu et al., 2002).We illustrate these theoretical frameworks with dif-ferent examples. Abraham et al. (1992) concentrated

Table I. The Purposes of Solution Chemistry Studies

Studies in chronological Understanding Comparativesequence level studies

Cosgrove and Osborne (1981) ×Gennaro (1981) ×Fensham and Fensham (1987) ×Holding (1987) ×Prieto et al. (1989) ×Longden et al. (1991) ×Drıver and Russell (1982) ×Abraham et al. (1992) ×Abraham et al. (1994) ×Smith and Metz (1996) ×Blanco and Prieto (1997) ×Ebenezer and Erickson (1996) ×Ebenezer and Fraser (2001) ×Liu et al. (2002) ×Liu and Ebenezer (2002) ×Pınarbası and Canpolat (2003) ×

on grade 8 students’ understandings of five chemicalconcepts: chemical change, dissolution, conservationof atoms, periodicity, and phase-change. These au-thors classified students as concrete operational andformal based on Piaget’s levels of reasoning ability.Longden et al. (1991) attempted to reveal relation-ship amongst categories, for example, A (dissolvingcorrect, particles correct) and B (dissolving incorrect,particles correct) during a 2-year period. These au-thors emphasized that their results do not provideany support for a developmental psychology like thatof Piaget on the acquisition of operational skills informal logic.

Blanco and Prieto (1997) grouped 12–18-year-old students’ responses into categories such as dis-solution, partial dissolution, dispersion/mixture, salton the bottom, which depicts a hierarchy of knowl-edge. Ebenezer and Erickson (1996) following thephenomenographic tradition of Marton and Booth(1997) explored and categorized grade 11 students’conceptions of solubility into a hierarchy of knowl-edge, from simple to complex, rather than categoriz-ing students into different levels of ability.

Based on Ausubel’s meaningful learning theory(Ausebel et al., 1986) and more recently humanconstructivism (Mintzes et al., 2000), Liu et al. (2002)structured first year engineering students’ concep-tions of energy in solution process into concept mapsrevealing relational meanings. Moreover, Prietoet al. (1989) investigated 11–14-year-old students’ideas about the nature of solutions and constructedthem into networks of relational meanings. Theforegoing solution chemistry studies reveal that theywere rooted in distinctive theoretical frameworks to


achieve different outcomes and represent students’understandings accordingly.

Cross-Age Comparison of Students’ Understanding

Solution chemistry studies also focused on cross-age comparisons of students’ understanding. Someexamples are provided. Cosgrove and Osborne’s(1981) compared 12–15-year-old students’ under-standings of the concept of dissolution, and revealedthat younger students often referred to dissolving asmelting, whereas the older students associated theevent with the appropriate technical term, but had nosound scientific concepts behind these labels. Drıverand Russell (1982), and Holding (1987), respectively,explored 8–14-year-old and 8-, 10-, 12-, 15- and17-year-old students’ understandings of the conser-vation of mass in the dissolution process and they in-dicated students’ understanding in a U-shaped devel-opment curve with respect to age. Holding also foundout that early school years did not see sugar solu-tion as a single phase and viewed invisible gross par-ticles of sugar remained. Prieto et al. (1989) studiedwith 11–12-, 12–13- and 13–14-year-old students intheir understanding of the nature of solutions. Withinthis age group, the terminology used by 6th and 8thgrade students was almost the same. Longden et al.(1991) compared ages 11–12 and 13–14 students’ in-terpretations of dissolution and claimed that under-standing of the particle interpretation enhanced withage. Blanco and Prieto (1997) studying with 12–18-year-old students on how stirring and temperatureaffect the dissolution of a solid in a liquid notedthat with increase in age, there was a poor progressin the development of chemical understandings interms of the effects of stirring and temperatureprocesses.

Cross-age studies tried to understand how stu-dents’ conceptions evolve or progress depending onage. The intention was to observe whether or notthe curriculum is age appropriate. Also, these studiesattempted to determine whether or not alternativeconceptions are resistant to change with increasingage. They were also interested in observing whetherthe current curriculum and instruction will producechange in conceptions. If not, their question was:What sort of strategies might be designed? Gener-ally, in higher education, if students retain alternativeconceptions, schoolteachers are blamed. Similarly,schoolteachers blame learning in the previous gradesand out-of school experiences. However, the cross-age studies reveal distribution of the levels in terms

of comprehension or reasoning rather than arisingfrom earlier grades.

Cross-Grade Comparison of Students’ Understanding

Fensham and Fensham (1987) in a simulatedlongitudinal study reported descriptions and frame-works of solutions and reactions in solutions of thefirst, second and third year of school students. In thisstudy, based on an assessment with a scientists’ scale,nearly half of the students (mostly in third year) ap-peared to have a particle view. The grade level wasalso evident in student’s ability to name the prod-uct of the reaction. Abraham et al. (1994) added theconcept of dissolution with the original five conceptsand selected samples from 9th grade physical sciencestudents, 11th and 12th grade high school chemistrystudents, and college students who were enrolled intheir first semester of general chemistry course at auniversity. They observed that only a few studentsin the college chemistry had sound understanding ofchemical change, periodicity, or phase change, whilethe use of particulate terms (atoms, molecules andions) increased across the grade levels.

If students at lower grades are not taught thetopics, researchers initially explore their pre-existingknowledge. Then, they explore students’ conceptionsat higher grades to note the kinds of changes andunderstand how pre-existing knowledge evolves orhow the earlier knowledge matches or mismatcheswith the current understanding. If students at lowerlevel are taught at a basic level, the studies concen-trate on determining whether or not students’ al-ternative conceptions are still robust. Thus, compar-isons among grade levels enable us match curriculumwith the evolution of student knowledge.

Methods of Exploring Students’ Conceptions

Table II indicates the exploration methods so-lution chemistry researchers have used to documentstudents’ conceptions. Seven studies used a singlemethod, eight studies used two methods, and twostudies used a combination of three methods. The ex-ploration methods were interviews, paper and pencilsurveys (open-ended questions and multiple-choicequestions), drawings, and free writing.

Interviews

Piaget and Inhelder (1974), Cosgrove andOsborne (1981), and Holding (1987) used clinical


Table II. Methods of Exploring Students’ Conceptions ofSolutions

PPSStudies in

chronological sequence I OEQ MCQ FW D

Piaget and Inhelder (1974) ×Cosgrove and Osborne (1981) ×Gennaro (1981) × ×Fensham and Fensham (1987) ×Holding (1987) × × ×Prieto et al. (1989) × × ×Longden et al. (1991) × ×Drıver and Russell (1982) ×Abraham et al. (1992) ×Abraham et al. (1994) × ×Smith and Metz (1996) × ×Ebenezer and Erickson (1996) × ×Blanco and Prieto (1997) × ×Ebenezer and Fraser (2001) × ×Liu et al. (2002) ×Liu and Ebenezer (2002) ×Pınarbası and Canpolat (2003) × ×Note. I: interview (n = 7), PPS: paper and pencil surveys [OEQ:open-ended question (n = 7), MCQ: multiple-choice questions(n = 4)], FW: free writing (n = 3), D: drawings (n = 8).

interviews to explore students’ reasoning on conser-vation of matter in the dissolution process. For exam-ple, Holding’s (1987) task on conservation reasoningrequired students to make predictions about the stateof a simple balance when sugar/water solution wasplaced on one side of the balance. Questions such aswhat was happening to sugar in the water were asked.

Fensham and Fensham (1987), via clinicalinterviews investigated students’ conceptions of thenature of solution using three phenomena: solidsdissolving in water, reaction between chemicals in so-lution, and the influence of various factors on the rateof reactions. Chemical systems such as sugar/water,potassium permanganate/water, barium nitrate andsodium sulfate solutions, sodium thiosulfate andhydrochloric acid solutions were used. In this study,questions included “What does dissolving mean?”and “What happens when salt/water solution isevaporated?”

Ebenezer and Erickson (1996), and Ebenezerand Fraser (2001) used a “phenomenographic”(Marton and Booth, 1997) tradition of individual in-terviews to explore grade 11 students’ conceptionsof solubility and first year chemical engineering stu-dents’ conceptions of energy in solution process re-spectively. In the Ebenezer and Erickson’s study(1996), the interview centered around three chem-ical systems: (a) sugar/water (System A), (b) wa-ter/alcohol/paint thinner (System B), (c) salt/water

(System C). Some of the questions are: “What mightbe happening to the sugar?” “Can you draw a pictureto describe what is happening to the sugar in water?”“Why are there two layers?” “Why has salt settled atthe bottom?”

To show the nature of interview, an excerptfollows:

[sugar/water]R: I am going to drop a cube of sugar. See what hap-

pens.S: Is it hot water?R: Yes, it is. Could you describe what might be hap-

pening?S: There are bubbles going up and sugar cube is melt-

ing. The sugar is going. It is melting practically. Itis no longer a cube.

R: What do you mean by melting?S: It dissolved. It was a cube. When you dropped it

in the water and like you see it, it is falling apart. Ithink hot water is making it softer. It will be morestickier. Yeah, it will stick. Sugar melted somewhatlike a syrup. That’s what I think.

R: Let me stir this and let us see what happens. Whatis happening?

S: There are no more crystals. Mixed in with hot wa-ter.

R: What do you mean by saying “mixed in with thehot water”?

S: It liquefies like the water.R: Do you think the sugar is in the liquid state?S: Yeah

Ebenezer and Erickson (1996, pp. 186–187)

In the foregoing interview conversation, a gen-eral question was asked: Could you describe whatmight be happening? The subsequent question: Whatdo you mean by melting? was based on the responsemade by the student: There are bubbles going up andsugar cube is melting. The sugar is going. It is meltingpractically. It is no longer a cube. Unlike the Socraticquestioning-type, which leads to a particular answer,questions such as the ones mentioned were asked toachieve clarity, to seek deeper understanding, andto explore multiple ideas. To identify the follow-upquestions, the researcher listened carefully to whatstudents had to say.

Ebenezer and Fraser (2001) also used a phe-nomenographic tradition, but used “interview-aboutinstance” (White and Gunstone, 1992) to observeconsistency of explanation. The instances were phys-ical examples (three different solids in water) of the


solution process. The three solution were sodium inwater (mildly endothermic, with no marked changein water temperature, Task A), sodium hydroxide(highly exothermic, with a marked rise in the watertemperature, Task B) and sodium thiosulfate (highlyendothermic, with a marked drop in the water tem-perature, Task C). Questions included “How wouldyou explain energy in dissolution?” “What is energyin dissolution?” “What do you think helps breakingthe bond?”

Pınarbası and Canpolat (2003) explored stu-dents’ conceptions of the types of solutions, vaporpressure lowering, solubility of a gas in water, andthe relationship between vapor pressure and boilingpoint using a diagnostic test of multiple-choice ques-tions. And then to confirm students’ responses and tofind sources of student understanding, both informaland formal interviews were conducted.

In clinical or individual interviews such as theone mentioned earlier, students are provided withan intellectual empathetic environment because theresearcher–student natural conversation occurs fo-cusing on tasks that students have experience with.Students, therefore, are able to freely explore theirideas, although the task constrains the way studentsrespond. Because of the free flow of ideas students’talk is rich and diverse. Researchers, therefore, takean enormous amount of time to transcribe the au-diotapes verbatim. Usually, in the transcribed infor-mation, they focus on pertinent information that an-swers their research questions and omit all othertypes of information, however useful they might be.

Paper Pencil Surveys

By means of alternative responses identifiedfrom a previous interview study with students of sim-ilar ages on their conceptions of conservation of rea-soning, Drıver and Russell (1982) designed a paperand pencil task, which required students to select aresponse from four or five choices. The paper andpencil test allowed students to consider, for example,What happens to sugar in water? and incorporatedsub-questions such as (i) What happens to the sugar?(ii) What will the contents of the beaker weigh after thesugar has been added? (iii) What will the contents ofthe beaker weigh when the sugar cannot be seen anymore?

In addition to clinical interviews as stated ear-lier, Holding (1987) used a survey consisting of open-ended questions to study students’ conservation rea-soning matter.

Blanco and Prieto (1997) following their earlierstudy explored students’ conceptions of how stirringand temperature affect the dissolution of a solid inliquid. A paper and pencil test comprising of open-ended questions and drawing their ideas was devisedto explore how students would see the water/salt sys-tem under different conditions: (a) leaving the salt inthe water for quite a long time, (b) stirring the sys-tem and then leaving it alone, and (c) adding salt tohot water and then leaving it alone. An example of aquestion used in the study is as follows: “After havingcompleted these operations, how will the content be-have in each beaker? Describe by means of drawingsand explanations.”

Longden et al. (1991) used open-ended ques-tions that required students to explain in wordswhat the contents of the beaker looked like or whatthe pictures represented. Similarly, Abraham et al.(1994) unlike their 1992 study that consisted of onlyopen-ended questions developed a test consisting ofopen-ended questions and drawings in order to de-termine students’ conceptual understanding of chem-ical concepts. They required students to explain aswell as draw the dissolution of a sugar cube in wa-ter. Smith and Metz (1996, p. 234) and Pınarbasıand Canpolat (2004) both used multiple-choice ques-tions, the former with drawings (e.g., “draw a micro-scopic representation to illustrate this chemical reac-tion. NiCl2 (aq) + 2NaOH (aq) → Ni(OH)2 (s) +2NaCl (aq)”), and the latter with interviews. An ex-ample of multiple-choice question found in Pınarbasıand Canpolat (2003, p. 1352) study follows:

At a particular constant temperature, the vaporpressure of water above a dilute sugar/water solu-tion is less than that of pure water. Decide which ofthe following statement(s) correctly explain(s) thisnotion.

I. Sugar molecules prevent water molecules from escapingout of solution owing to the attractive forces between thesugar molecules and water molecules.

II. In solution, the number of water molecules per unitvolume is reduced because of the presence of sugarmolecules.

III. Sugar and water molecules repel each other.

(a) I (b) II (c) I and II (d) I and III (e) III

With multiple-choice and open-ended questions,Gennaro (1981) studied the concept of solubility tounderstand students’ level of understanding. An ex-ample follows (p. 402):

50 grams of table salt is put into a beaker contain-ing 100 cm3 of water at 50◦C. After stirring, it is ob-


served that some of the table salt dissolves, leavinga quantity of undissolved table salt at the bottom ofthe beaker. When this table salt at the bottom of thebeaker is collected (by filtering), dried and weighed,it is found that the weight of this undissolved salt is13 grams. This means that solubility of table salt inwater at 50 ◦C is

a) 100 gr/100 cm3

b) 50 gr/100 cm3

c) 37 gr/100 cm3

d )13 gr/100 cm3

Free Writing

Liu and Ebenezer (2002), and Liu et al. (2002)used free writing as a way of exploring grades 7 and12 students’ conceptions of solutions and first yearengineering students’ conceptions of energy respec-tively. In both studies, students were asked to brain-storm a few concepts that they considered were re-lated to the phenomenon explored and then writeone or two paragraphs to indicate the relationshipsbetween those concepts. An example of excerptsfrom students free writing depicted by Liu et al.(2002) is shown later:

Energy is a potential that gives the ability to work.Energy can be converted from on form to another.Kinetic energy enables one the ability for move-ment. Food produces energy. Energy is not created,it is mere converted. Potential energy could refer tothe internal state of energy of a system. Heat is en-ergy because it can do work on many different ob-jects (p. 429).

Prieto et al. (1989) along with free writingstrategy to explore students’ conceptions of thenature of solutions, they also used a survey con-taining open-ended questions. For example, thefirst question required students to explain, in theirwords, what they comprehended by the expression“to dissolve one substance in another,” whereas thesecond question asked students to draw (an exampleis included in the next section) how they imagineda substance that is completely dissolved in water. Astudent’s response follows:

It breaks up in to small particles; its molecules areseparate; due to the fact that one substance dissolvesin the other, a new substance is formed; moleculesof water and sugar join (Prieto et al., 1989, pp. 456–457).

Usually in free writing, like the interview ex-cerpts, prior categories are not imposed. Categoriesare inductively derived from students’ responses.

For examples, Liu and Ebenezer (2002) took sev-eral steps to develop the phenomenographic cate-gories: (a) identifying meaningful sentences in thestudents’ writing by inserting outcome space betweenthem; (b) printing out the identified meaningful sen-tences; (c) labeling each of the sentences using oneexact or closely related word/phrase from the stu-dents’ writings; (d) making multiple copies of thelabeled sentences from step (c); (e) color codingthe sentences that had the same words/phrases; (f)cutting out the sentences that the same color andputting them into a pile; (h) representing the de-scriptive categories with the most appropriate exam-ples; (i) repeating steps (e)–(h) until all the label-ing words/phrases were used; and (j) ordering thecategories into a hierarchy based on the progressionfrom macro descriptive/static characteristics of solu-tions to micro theoretical/dynamic properties of so-lutions. This procedure facilitates categorization ofdata; hence, the researchers may have more accuratedata. In addition to arriving at phenomenographiccategories, these authors also determined structuralcharacteristics from students’ free writing by convert-ing the data into conceptual networks.

Drawings

As observed in Table II, eight studies used draw-ings with another research method. For example,Longden et al. (1991, p. 62) used drawings with open-ended questions.

You may have heard about atoms. These are bitsthat everything is made of. They are very very smalland cannot be seen with a microscope. The crystaland the water have different kinds of atoms. I haveused a different colour for each one. In picture 2, Ihave drawn the crystal and the water showing eachas atoms. Of course, there would really be millionsand millions of invisible blobs but I can’t draw that!On your picture 2, show the atoms after the crystalhas dissolved.

Validity and Reliability of Exploration Methods

Solution chemistry researchers utilized severalways to increase the validity and reliability of their


research. They are random selection of the sample(Longden et al., 1991; Fensham and Fensham, 1987;Abraham et al., 1994); using several methods for tri-angulation, for example, drawings and open-endedquestions in addition to interviews (Holding, 1987;Prieto et al., 1989; Ebenezer and Erickson, 1996;Ebenezer and Fraser, 2001); independent peer re-view and discussion of analysis for agreement anddisagreement (Longden et al., 1991; Abraham et al.,1994; Ebenezer and Erickson, 1996; Ebenezer andFraser, 2001; Liu et al., 2002), and confirmation ofcontent validity of instruments of paper and pencilsurveys by a group of teachers, educators and scien-tists (Pınarbası and Canpolat, 2003). This validationprocess is important to have confidence in research-based strategies for classroom use.

General Knowledge Claims in Solution Chemistry

Each solution chemistry study was analyzed todetermine the general knowledge claims the re-searchers made. They are students’ (a) attendingto mechanical events; (b) preference for everydaylanguage usage over chemical language; (c) confus-ing solution chemistry with non-related concepts;(d) lack of sub-microscopic explanation for macro-scopic observation; (e) difficulty with visualizing andrepresenting sub-microscopic ideas; (f) difficulty withsymbolic representations; (g) inconsistent explana-tions; (h) development of student understanding withage; and (i) development of conservation reasoningwith age.

Attending to Mechanical Events

Prieto et al. (1989), and Blanco and Prieto (1997)pointed out that most students attended to mechan-ical events such as stirring, shaking, and heating inthe dissolution of matter. Furthermore, Blanco andPrieto (1997) stressed that students believed stirringwas associated with concepts of dispersion and dis-solution. In addition, these authors found out thatstudents had difficulties with respect to how stirringand temperature influence the dissolution process.Also, they stated that students at upper level ex-plained, “Heat yielded currents that dragged at thesalt.” They concluded that the development of chem-ical concepts was rather poor because students’ di-rect observation of the mechanical events make themthink that the phenomenon of solution do not takeplace without mechanical events.

Preference for Everyday Language UsageOver Chemical Language

Whether or not students understood the solu-tion phenomenon, some students described it usingthe language learned in formal school chemistry, andothers were comfortable using everyday language(Prieto et al., 1989; Ebenezer and Erickson, 1996).The everyday terminology “melt” was commonlyused to describe the concept of dissolution (Cosgroveand Osborne, 1981; Prieto et al., 1989; Abraham et al.,1992, 1994; Ebenezer and Erickson, 1996; Ebenezer,2001). Referring to this dilemma, Longden et al.(1991) stressed that school learning seems to exist ina different domain of knowledge from students’ ev-eryday experience. Students are not able to differ-entiate the inconsistency between chemical knowl-edge and everyday knowledge. While some childrenare unaware of this inconsistency, others approveof it. Some may even feel that everyday languageis adequate and good enough to express the givenphenomenon (Hess, 1987; Ebenezer and Erickson,1996). When students are inclined to do dual talkfor whatever reason, they need to be taught to dis-tinguish between contexts. They should feel that it is“ok” to use “melt” in ordinary talk. But in classroomconversation, meanings should be conveyed throughappropriate language of the chemists. Like Gilbertet al., (1982), and Pines and West (1986) observed,while some students may prefer to say, “sugar is dis-solving in water” outside of school, the same studentsmay say, “sugar is melting in water/tea/coffee.”

Confusing Solution Chemistry withNon-Related Concepts

Fensham and Fensham (1987), Prieto et al.(1989), Longden et al. (1991), Ebenezer and Erickson(1996), Blanco and Prieto (1997), Ebenezer andFraser (2001), Ebenezer (2001), Kaartinen andKumpulainen (2002), and Liu and Ebenezer (2002)have pointed that students are confused with solu-tion chemistry concepts, and tend to use terms, whichhave little relation with the investigated concept. Forinstance, Prieto et al. (1989) reported that studentsuse the concepts of density and absorption to ex-plain the dissolution process. Also students referredto the interaction between the solute and the sol-vent in the dissolution process, they thought it to bea chemical change (Prieto et al., 1989; Ebenezer andErickson, 1996). This reveals that students are unableto differentiate between science concepts.


Lack of Sub-Microscopic Explanationsfor Macroscopic Observation

Holding (1987) emphasized that the term“molecules” was rarely mentioned in the earlieryears (students aged 8, 10 and 12) to describe thedissolving of sugar in water, which is not surprisingand should not be even expected. However, Hold-ing added while an appreciable proportion of olderstudents (aged 15 and 17) talked about “molecularparticles” of sugar, only half of these students re-ferred to “molecules of water.” Similarly, Prieto et al.(1989) observed that only a few students made refer-ence to the particle model, for example, “Moleculesof water and sugar join (8th grader, 13 years)”in their explanations to sugar dissolving in water.Ebenezer and Erickson (1996) have pointed out, forstudents; the term “particle” means a very small, vis-ible piece of solid substance such as a granule ofsugar. Further, Fensham and Fensham (1987) ob-served that none of the students referred to anatomic-scale particle model in his or her answersto the questions that explored the formation of theprecipitate.

Chemistry, generally, relies on a single theoret-ical model, which requires students to think at thesub-microscopic level. What Abraham et al. (1994)state is true of solution chemistry studies, that is,the majority of students’ reasoning is concrete oper-ational and the solution chemistry concepts requireformal operational reasoning. Interestingly, these au-thors have pointed out that even though the use ofatomic and molecular models enhance with increasedexposure to chemical concepts, an unexpected resultis that college students who were registered in theirfirst semester of general chemistry, rarely referredto it when they tried to explain the phenomenonrelevant to the investigated concepts. To help stu-dents make connections between experience-basedobservations of chemical phenomena and chemists’abstract atomic and molecular models, instructionalstrategies should be improved. Because students maynot know the differences between the terms “atom,”“molecule,” “ion” and “particle” it is crucial to helpstudents use appropriate terminology (Ebenezer andErickson, 1996).

Difficulty with Visualizing and RepresentingSub-Microscopic Ideas

Several studies have indicated that studentshad difficulties in visualizing events and represent-

ing them at the sub-microscopic level. Most stu-dents in Holding’s (1987) study depicted “bits ofsugar” distributing in several ways without drawingthe water. Hence, it appears that a continuous viewof water is still too widespread among older stu-dents. In analyzing students’ drawings, Prieto et al.(1989) observed that majority of students were un-able to make relationship between the dissolutionprocess and particulate nature of matter. In addi-tion, they also stressed that students who were taughtthe topic surprisingly had depicted matter contin-uous. Ebenezer and Erickson (1996) pointed outthat one of the most powerful influences on stu-dents’ reasoning ability is their own inclination to uti-lize behavior of substances at the macroscopic levelto explaining phenomena at the sub-microscopiclevel.

Chemical knowledge is learned at three levels:“sub-microscopic,” “macroscopic” and “symbolic”and the link between these levels should be explic-itly taught (Johnstone, 1991; Gabel, 1992; Harrisonand Treagust, 2000; Ebenezer, 2001; Ravialo, 2001;Treagust et al., 2003). Also, the interactions and dis-tinctions between them are important characteristicsof chemistry learning and necessary for achievementin comprehending chemical concepts. Therefore, ifstudents possess difficulties at one of the levels,it may influence the other. Thus, determining andovercoming these difficulties should be our primarygoal.

Difficulty with Symbolic Representations

Smith and Metz (1996) found out that major-ity of the conceptions, which are undetectable withgeneral mathematical problems can be drawn outusing sub-microscopic representations of concepts.In addition, they stated, in spite of the fact thatstudents balanced the equation correctly, they stillhad difficulties with the interpretations of represen-tations. Moreover, they stressed that students didnot understand the solubility process at a satisfactorylevel. Additionally, they pointed out that the con-ceptions concerning aqueous solutions can influencefurther learning and can go beyond the undergradu-ate level. This shows that conceptions are resistant tochange when courses are taught in traditional ways(Griffiths et al., 1988; Westbrook and Marek, 1991;Garnett and Treagust, 1992; Nakhleh, 1992; Quiles-Pardo and Solaz-Portoles, 1995; Ayas and Demirbas,1997; Tsai, 1999).


Inconsistent Explanations

Ebenezer and Fraser (2001) identified four de-scriptive categories of students’ conceptions of en-ergy involved in solution process: (i) you give en-ergy; (ii) water gives energy; (iii) salt gives energy;(iv) reaction gives off energy. They emphasized thatthese types of answers were task dependent—that is,although students used the same concepts for eachtask, they did not subscribe to the same meanings tothe concepts used in each task. Taking into accountthis conclusion, it may be stated that students havesome ideas about the given events or concepts, butthey have not distinguished these ideas precisely.

Development of Student Understanding with Age

Abraham et al. (1994) have stated that it is notclear that there is a relationship between grade leveland students’ understandings of the concepts of so-lution chemistry. This reveals that age-related devel-opment has little to do with conceptual understand-ing. Prieto et al. (1989), and Longden et al. (1991)also made a similar claim. However, Longden et al.(1991) pointed out that although there is very lit-tle age-related development in regard to students’understanding of the specific concept of dissolution,there is a significant development associated with un-derstanding of particulate theory of matter.

Liu and Ebenezer (2002) explored students’structural characteristics and tried to make a compar-ison between grade 7 and 12. These authors pointedout that grade 7 students had 67 concepts, which wereidentified by analyzing their free writings. The num-bers of concepts of grade 12 arose to 189 concepts in-cluding 67 concepts determined at grade 7. Further-more, they identified seven descriptive categories,which constituted a hierarchy from macro descrip-tive/static characteristics of solutions to micro the-oretical/dynamic properties of solutions. These areas follows: (1) primitive/indirect conceptions; (2) so-lution is a mixture; (3) mixing of solutions causestransformation; (4) solutions exist in different statesdepending on temperature; (5) solutions form a pre-cipitate; (6) dissolving is breaking substances intopieces until they vanish with the solvent; (7) dissolv-ing is a process in which the bonds break. Besides,they stated that while concepts of grade 7 were rang-ing from category 1 to 3, those of grade 12 appearedfrom 4 to 7. Taking into consideration this result,they pointed out that there was no overlap in cat-egories between grade 7 and 12. This revealed that

students had made some progress in terms of con-ceptual development from grade 7 to 12. Moreover,they stressed that while conceptual development ingrade 7 was less than that in grade 12, the types ofrelationships in grade 12 were not as clear as grade 7.

Development of Conservation Reasoning with Age

Piaget and Inhelder (1974) identified four stagesof development in students’ understanding of dis-solving: (1) absence of any conservation (4–7 years);(2) conservation of substance (7–9 years); (3) conser-vation of mass (9–12 years); (4) conservation of vol-ume (12 years onward). Nevertheless, they deducedthat when students started to improve their under-standing of the atomic topic and develop particu-late nature of matter, their ability to conserve massand volume developed. Drıver and Russell (1982) re-ported that students’ understanding of the conserva-tion of mass relied on the content of the question. Forexample, the number of students who predicted a lossin mass after the sugar had especially been dissolvedtended to decrease with age. They noted evidenceof a U-shaped developmental curve, i.e., a high pro-portion of the younger and older students conservedmass of the given process, whereas a small proportionof student aged 9–10 did not. Holding’s (1987) studyalso showed a U-shaped developmental curve fromstudents’ responses associated with conservation ofmass. He also concluded that conservation reasoningincreased with age.

The law of conservation of matter is one of themost well-known conservation laws and essentialfor science and chemistry education (Stavy, 1990).Also, it is seen as a cornerstone in the developmentof the particulate theory of matter and of modernchemistry. Based on the foregoing studies, it may beinferred that conceptions of dissolving such as “dis-appear” and “decompose” may affect conceptionsrelated to conservation of mass in the dissolutionprocess.

Liu et al. (2002), after exploring students’ con-ceptions of energy involved in solutions, stated thatalthough students understood conservation of en-ergy, they were unable to apply this principle to con-version of energy in the solution processes.

Students’ Conceptions and Difficulties

Solution chemistry studies and related stud-ies were examined to identify students’ conceptionsand their difficulties. The categories of students’


conceptions and difficulties are represented inTable III: conditions for dissolving; the solution pro-cess; representation of chemical knowledge; and con-servation reasoning.

Conditions for Dissolving

With respect to properties of solute, Abrahamet al. (1992) reported students considered sand willnot dissolve because it was denser (n = 39), thicker(n = 9), harder (n = 19), or rougher (n = 4). In ad-dition, eight students thought because sand was not achemical, it will not dissolve: “if a substance dissolvesit’s a chemical; if it doesn’t it’s a chemical.” Studentsthought that sugar is heavier or denser than waterwhen a cube of sugar is dropped into water, and crys-tals remaining at the bottom before stirring (Prietoet al., 1989; Ebenezer and Gaskell, 1995; Ebenezerand Erickson, 1996)

With respect to the condition of stirring, Blancoand Prieto (1997) pointed out that the stirring pro-cess impacts the amount of solute that dissolves intoa solvent, and more stirring means more dissolution.This may result from misinterpretation of their ob-servation, for instance, when we add sugar into tea, ifwe stir, it dissolves rapidly, if not, it dissolves slowly.The time necessary for the dissolution process de-clines when we stir. As well, there is less sugar atthe bottom. Students may consider that the amountof sugar at the bottom is an indicator of the ideathat stirring enhances the amount of the dissolvedsolute.

Prieto et al. (1989), Ebenezer and Erickson(1996), Blanco and Prieto (1997), and Ebenezer(2001) referred to students’ statement of how heat af-fects the dissolution process. The particulate natureof matter is significant because when the solvent isheated, its particles speed up; hence, the amount ofthe dissolved solute is greater. It can be deduced thatstudents who had difficulties in understanding the ef-fect of heat and temperature may have problems withvisualizing the movement of particles and particulatetheory.

Ebenezer and Fraser (2001), and Liu et al. (2002)depicted that students’ alternative conceptions wereassociated with chemical bonding and attractiveforces when they referred to energy in solution pro-cess. It may also be concluded that students’ difficul-ties in solution chemistry may engender new alterna-tive conceptions with respect to chemical bonding.

Pınarbası and Canpolat (2003) stressed that stu-dents did not distinguish between solution and pure

solvent in terms of lowering of vapor pressure andtotal pressure of gaseous mixture above the solution.This may indicate that students have difficulties withextending their knowledge about “evaporation andboiling” into solution chemistry.

Ebenezer and Erickson (1996) noted studentsbelieved that the amount of space available in so-lution is necessary for the dissolution process. Gen-erally, students stated that the dissolution processinvolves molecules of solvent hitting the grains orchunks of solute and then molecules of solid breakaway and spread out evenly in the solvent. Such astatement is open to multiple interpretations: “Sugarparticles occupy the air spaces between the solvent.”“Salt particles surrounded with water molecules.”

The Solution Process

Fensham and Fensham (1987), Prieto et al.(1989), Longden et al. (1991), Lee et al. (1993),and Kabapınar et al. (2004) found out that studentstended to use the term “disappearing” for “dissolv-ing.” Even though they did not use the term “dissolv-ing,” by “disappearing” they may mean that the so-lute is not seen by naked eye.

When Prieto et al. (1989), Abraham et al. (1992,1994), and Lee et al. (1993) asked students to ex-plain the term “dissolution,” students talked aboutthe concept of floating/sinking. Students claim thatwhen solute dissolves, it floats. Further, they mayconsider that the sinking takes place at the begin-ning of the dissolution process; unfortunately, theymay attempt to generalize this idea.

Prieto et al. (1989), and Abraham et al. (1994) re-ported that students thought water was “absorbing”the solute. Cosgrove and Osborne (1981), Renstrom(1988), Prieto et al. (1989), Abraham et al. (1992,1994), Ebenezer and Erickson (1996), Ebenezer(2001), and Kabapınar et al. (2004) pointed out thatstudents were not able to distinguish between theconcepts of “melting” and “dissolving.” Studentsseemed to apply their perceptual reasoning in thiscase. On the other hand, they might be using the twoconcepts interchangeably.

Fensham and Fensham (1987), Prieto et al.(1989), Abraham et al. (1992, 1994), Ebenezer andErickson (1996), Taylor and Coll (1997), Ebenezer(2001), and Kaartinen and Kumpulainen (2002) in-dicated that students believed a chemical change ortransformation takes place during the process of dis-solution. Such an idea may result from the repre-sentation of dissolution of ionic solid into water, i.e.,


Table III. Students’ Conceptions in Solution Chemistry

Descriptive categoriesof students’ conceptions

of solutions Students’ conceptions List of studies

The conditions of dissolvinga. Property of solute Denser, thicker, harder, or rougher, i.e., sand was not to dissolve because it

was denser, thicker, harder, or rougher(5)

A chemical i.e., if a substance dissolves it is a chemical, if it doesn’t it is not achemical

(5)

Density of solute (3, 7, 32)b. The effect of stirring Unless the stirring process is taken place, the solute (salt) does not mix with

solvent (water) or stay at the bottom, on the other hand, if we do this, thesolute (salt) dissolves for a while, however, when we cease the stirringprocess, the salt would settle at the bottom again, i.e., the salt would staythe same because once we stop stirring it would sink to the bottom andthe water would remain the same; the salt would move but once we stopstirring would go to the bottom; when stirred the particles would dissolvethroughout the water; the salt will stay dissolved for a while but later willbe at the bottom; on being stirred it will dissolve to begin with but later itwill go to the bottom again

(31)

The stirring process affects the amount of the dissolved solute, i.e., the saltwill settle but will be more dissolved than in A because it has been stirred;part of the salt has dissolved due to movement and part of it goes to thebottom of the vessel having come to rest

(31)

c. The effect of heatand temperature

If the water is very hot the salt would spread through the water but whencooled it would sink again; the salt will remain as it was; the salt goes intosolution in a stable form, having been acted upon by heat

(31)

The importance to the mechanical actions such as stirring, shaking, heatingin which dissolution process involved

(3)

The heat would cause the particles of the sugar to get smaller and theywould move further apart

(7, 10)

d. Energy Solution process involves the release of the stored energy in the salt crystals;solution process involves the release of energy during bond breaking insalt crystals, solution process involves the transition of energy when thesystem strives to reach a lower energy state; solution process involves theenergy provided by water to break the bonds in the salt crystal; solutionprocess involves energy when a solid transforms into its liquid state;solution process involves energy as a result of chemical transformation ofreactants into products

(21)

During energy in dissolution process: you give energy, i.e., the person who isstirring provides energy; water gives energy, i.e., water provide energy tobreak the crystal bonds; salt gives off energy, i.e., there is more potentialenergy in the heat and it is giving out that energy, and reaction gives offenergy, i.e., the formation between the water molecules and the ions ofsodium hydroxide releases energy

(22)

e. Vapor pressure Attractive forces between solute and solvent molecules in a solutionengendered vapor pressure lowering

The amount of gas dissolved in a solvent is proportional to total pressure ofgaseous mixture above the solution

(24)

Different liquids have different vapor pressures at their own boiling pointf. Amount of space

available in solutionThere is no space available in the water/alcohol mixture for the paint

thinner to lodge because the attraction or closeness between particles ofwater and alcohol prevents another liquid that has no “attraction” towardwater from finding space

(7, 32)

The solution processa. Disappearing Solid disappears in the water (1, 2, 3, 4, 34)b. Floating/sinking Sugar particles floated (5, 6)

Sugar particles floated sank to the bottom of the beaker (3, 4)c. Absorbing The water absorbed the sugar (3, 6)d. Melting Sugar undergoes a phase change, melts (3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 34)


Table III. Continued

Descriptive categoriesof students’ conceptions

of solutions Students’ conceptions List of studies

e. Chemical changeor transformationor combination

Sugar changes chemically into a new substance or a new substance is formedSubstance is combined with water

(2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 32)

f. Breaking intoparticles

Solute breaks down into its ions or elements or solute breaks up to intosmall particles or its molecules are separate or it decomposes

(3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 32)

Breaking of attractiveforces in solute

The breaking of attractive forces in the solute. (7,10)

g. Occupying space The solute occupying spaces between the solvent molecules (7, 10, 32)

Representation of chemical knowledgea. Images Attacking, decay, falling apart, landslide, and snow flakes (7, 10)b. Language labels The terms “atoms” and “molecules” or an atomic-scale particle model or

particulate theory were not used i.e., many students referred to “sugaratoms”

(2, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 34)

c. Explanation ofsub-microscopicwith macroscopicobservations

Students usually tend to attribute macroscopic properties such as melting,dissolving, expanding to sub-microscopic particles

(14, 18)

d. Chemical The many errors regarding the hydroxide ion could be representative ofmisunderstanding of polyatomic ions in general. The representations ofdiatomic chlorine, hydroxide and sodium indicate problems with theconcept of diatomic species. Problems with structure, such as sodiumbeing the central atom in NaOH, indicate misconceptions of bonding

(23)

Conservation reasoningConservation

reasoningIt is heavier (19, 25, 26, 27, 33) or smaller (19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34) than

total mass of solute and solvent(19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33)

The dissolved sugar has no weight or mass (33, 34)A loss/gain in mass with regard to conservation both open and closed

systems—the side with the sugar in the water would go up; the sugarwould get lighter or weigh less; when we mix the sugar to dissolve theparticles, these get smaller so that sugar will weigh less than the othersugar; sugar will go into microscopic pieces and make it lighter; the sidewith the sugar in the water would go down: sugar would gain weight whendissolved in water

(29, 30)

Sugar in water is “heavier than normal” (26)

Note. 1: Longden et al. (1991), 2: Fensham and Fensham (1987), 3: Prieto et al. (1989), 4: Lee et al. (1993), 5: Abraham et al. (1992), 6:Abraham et al. (1994), 7: Ebenezer and Erickson (1996), 8: Kaartinen and Kumpulainen (2002), 9: Taylor and Coll (1997), 10: Ebenezer(2001), 11: Cosgrove and Osborne (1981), 12: Renstrom (1988), 13: Liu and Ebenezer (2002), 14: Brook et al. (1984), 15: Haidar andAbraham (1991), 16: Johnston (1998), 17: Valanides (2000), 18: Andersson (1992); 19: Holding (1987), 20: Gennaro (1981), 21: Liu et al.(2002), 22: Ebenezer and Fraser (2001), 23: Smith and Metz (1996), 24: Pınarbası and Canpolat (2003), 25: Drıver and Russell (1982), 26:Johnson and Scott (1991), 27: Ramsden (1997), 28: Andersson (1984), 29: Barker and Millar (1999), 30: Ozmen and Ayas (2003), 31: Blancoand Prieto (1997), 32: Ebenezer and Gaskell (1995); 33: Stavy (1990); 34: Kabapınar et al. (2004).

when the dissolved table salt is illustrated as Na+ andCl−, students may think a new compound is forming.

Prieto et al. (1989), Abraham et al. (1994),Ebenezer and Gaskell (1995), Ebenezer andErickson (1996), Ebenezer (2001), and Liu andEbenezer (2002) discussed students’ notion of thesolute “breaking into particles” at the macroscopiclevel. Ebenezer and Erickson (1996), and Ebenezer(2001) also pointed to students’ sub-microscopicunderstanding of “breaking of attractive forces insolute.” These alternative conceptions may stem

from the misinterpretation of the process of hydra-tion or understanding of the particulate nature ofmatter.

Representation of Chemical Knowledge

Ebenezer and Erickson (1996), and Ebenezer(2001) depicted the images students have of the so-lution process. Students drew relationship betweentheir images and the dissolution process, i.e., attack-ing, decay, falling apart, landslide, and snowflakes.


Brook et al. (1984), Fensham and Fensham(1987), Haidar and Abraham (1991), Abraham et al.(1992, 1994), Johnston (1998), Valanides (2000), andKabapınar et al. (2004) stated that students havedifficulties using appropriate language labels. Eventhough the particulate theory underpins chemistryand the sciences, most students did not seem to payattention to this at a sufficient level. They even seemto ignore it. Further, although the particulate theoryare taught at earlier grades, students are not com-fortable in explaining solution in terms of this theory.We might even pause to consider whether or not stu-dents should be taught the particulate theory at theelementary and middle school levels. Because thistheory requires students to reach formal operationalreasoning, particulate theory and the understandingof related concepts “atom,” “molecule” is quite diffi-cult to be tutored.

Brook et al. (1984) and Andersson (1992)claimed that students usually tend to attribute macro-scopic properties such as melting, dissolving, ex-panding to sub-microscopic particles. This may beas a result of observing macroscopic phenomenadirectly. Thus, students’ experiences may promotethem to generalize at both macroscopic and micro-scopic levels.

Smith and Metz (1996) found that studentshad misunderstanding of representations of chemicalknowledge. This reveals that students are unable touse symbolic knowledge at an adequate level. In fact,these may come from misinterpretating macroscopicand microscopic aspects and the link between thesetwo types of knowledge.

Conservation Reasoning

Drıver and Russell (1982), Andersson (1984),Holding (1987), Johnson and Scott (1991), Stavy(1990), Ramsden (1997), Barker and Millar (1999),Ozmen and Ayas (2003), and Kabapınar et al. (2004)noted that students retained some alternative con-

ceptions on conservation of mass during dissolu-tion tasks. It can be concluded that some alterna-tive conceptions such as disappear, breaking intoparticles, absorbing may engender difficulties withrespect to conservation of mass. For example, whenstudents believe that solute disappears into solvent,they may think that it also loses its mass is alsolost.

Conceptual Change Strategies and Outcomes

Some researchers have gone beyond knowingprior conceptions and determining students’ difficul-ties to reporting students’ post-instructional concep-tions as a result of having tested their explanatorymodels through specific strategies. Table IV indicatesstrategies that solution chemistry researchers haveused to bring about conceptual change.

To design strategies to replace students’ concep-tions with those of scientists’ ideas, the researchershave taken three general steps: Firstly, students’prior instructional conceptions are identified. Sec-ondly, intervention for conceptual change is de-signed and implemented. Thirdly, students’ post-instructional conceptions are assessed to observe ifthere is any conceptual change.

Johnson and Scott (1991) designed a worksheetto incorporate students’ conceptions of conservationof mass in the dissolution process. Taylor and Coll(1997, p. 61) developed an analogy to see the par-allels between the analogy and conservation of mat-ter during the dissolution process. The analogy is asfollows:

The experimental group completed a task, whichinvolved dissolving a few potassium permanganatecrystals in tap water before repeating the processusing white sugar. The intent of this strategy wasto add an extra physical characteristic (i.e. colour)and hence provide visual support for the dissolutionprocess. In addition, a bridging analogy—thedissolution of some brown sugar—was includedto act as a bridge between the anchoring situation

Table IV. Conceptual Change Strategies

Studies according to The devised Hypermedia A groupchronological sequence PPS D Obs. Int. unit environment Worksheet exploration Analogy

Johnson and Scott (1991) × × ×Ebenezer and Gaskell (1995) × × ×Taylor and Coll (1997) × × ×Ebenezer (2001) × × ×Kaartinen and Kumpulainen (2002) × × ×Kabapınar et al. (2004) × × ×Note. PPS: paper and pencil surveys; D: drawing, Obs.: observation; Int.: interview.


(dissolving potassium permanganate) and the targetsituation (dissolving white sugar).

Ebenezer and Gaskell (1995) devised a uniton solution chemistry working collaboratively witha chemistry teacher. Ebenezer (2001) designed ahypermedia environment to animate the dissolu-tion process. Kaartinen and Kumpulainen (2002) de-signed a group exploration to inquire about the sol-ubility of salt, sugar, potato flour, baking soda andone mixture consisting of wheat flour and bakingsoda. Kabapınar et al. (2004) developed a teaching–learning sequence on the particle model of mat-ter, including the concept of solubility. Furthermore,different grade levels were selected for solutionchemistry intervention studies to provide explana-tory models. Whereas Taylor and Coll (1997), andKaartinen and Kumpulainen (2002) studied with stu-dent teachers, Ebenezer and Gaskell (1995), andEbenezer (2001) worked with grade 11 students.Kabapınar et al. (2004) concentrated on first year sec-ondary school students (age 14–15), which might be9th or 10th grade students. Johnson and Scott (1991)studied with grade 8 (12–13-year-old students).

Johnson and Scott (1991) discovered that if stu-dents’ latter responses are taken into account in ac-cordance with those at the beginning of the study,after intervention, there was a change in students’ no-tions from predictions based on non-conservation ofmass to those implicated in conservation of mass. Forexample, they emphasized that prediction, before in-tervention and demonstration displayed that 34 stu-dents referred to the loss in mass and five studentsclaimed a gain in mass, and the rest of them (27 stu-dents) stated that the given mass is conserved. How-ever, they pointed out that after tasks, demonstra-tions, and discussions, the numbers of students werefound to be as follows: 4 (loss in mass), 62 (balanced)and 0 (gain in mass). In addition, they stated thatconceptual change enabled students to share theirideas with the others, to respect others, and to learnthe others’ ideas concerning the problem. Moreover,they noted that students might have some difficul-ties with their own ideas, which were conflicting orseemed “wrong.” Taylor and Coll (1997) pointed outthat the analogy they used did seem to offer an ap-proach for decreasing the status of the alternativeconceptions “White sugar changed into water duringdissolution.” Also, they emphasized that the analogyenabled conceptual change in students without theneed for cognitive conflict. Moreover, they focusedon how different cultures affect alternative concep-

tions. Their research showed that the alternative con-ceptions held by Fijian and Indian students are com-mon and quite similar even though students havevery different cultural backgrounds.

Ebenezer and Gaskell (1995) stated that eventhough students may have learned some chemicalterminology, the content knowledge that they coulduse were limited. Also, they reported that usageof different ways for conceptualizing solubility de-pended on the type of system. For example, the con-ception “density of solute” was mostly observed inSystem B (water/alcohol/paint thinner). Moreover,they identified three important factors, which affectstudents. These were as follows: (a) chemical theoriesused on dissolution have other meanings; (b) studentsfocused on either visibility or invisibility of event to de-scribe a chemical system; and (c) there is a discrepancybetween the language students familiar with and thelanguage teachers use. In addition, they stressed thatsome new concepts appeared after post-instruction.Moreover, they pointed out that even after instruc-tion, a number of students explained the solutionprocess in terms of melting.

Ebenezer (2001) outlined four categories of stu-dents’ conceptions within the hypermedia environ-ment. They are as follows: (a) students’ conceptionsof salt dissolved in water; (b) students’ conceptionsof melting versus dissolving; (c) students’ personalconceptions versus hypermedia conceptions of dis-solving; and (d) students’ conceptions of dissolving.In addition, she stated that students’ expressionsand representations provided some evidence, whichshowed that the animations in the hypermedia envi-ronment enabled students to visualize how meltingdiffers from dissolving, how ions are formed and howhydration happened. Also, she emphasized that dur-ing the subsequent lessons, students who achievedtheir understanding of the table salt dissolving in wa-ter were able to translate their understanding to thedissolution of other ionic solids in water. Further-more, she stated that the students were successfulin representing the solution process of various sub-stances with related ionic equations. She also iden-tified three difficulties encountered in the hyperme-dia environment. They are: (a) the ion formation,(b) the polar nature of water molecules, and (c)the hydration process. As a matter of fact, she con-fessed that hypermedia environment did not provideenough chemical details (descriptive, illustration orsymbolic) to students.

Kaartinen and Kumpulainen (2002) found outthat heterogeneous distribution in the group seemed


to enable ideal conditions for problem solving. More-over, they pointed out that based on collaborative in-quiry, the study also involved teaching students to re-spect the other students’ approaches. Furthermore,they reported that analysis of pre-test and post-testresults revealed that there was a qualitative changein the structure of students’ explanation. In addi-tion, they stated that the specially designed science-learning environment for their study provided stu-dents to elaborate their own conceptual structuresof dissolving. They referred to the fact that students’explanations in the pre-test were generally descrip-tive in nature, while those in the post-test were moreexplanatory, reflecting cause–effect reasoning and for-mal reasoning. Taking into consideration these re-sults, they pointed out that collaborative inquiry gaverise to the construction of alternative explanationsaround the concept of dissolving.

Kabapınar et al.’s (2004) main aim was to ex-plore the effect upon students’ understanding of sol-ubility by introducing a simple particle model of mat-ter. They found out that students who were exposedto the designed teaching sequence were better ableto express the processes of dissolving by means ofa simple particle model than those who followed atraditional approach. Besides, they pointed out thatthe experimental group was able to use particulateideas to explain the difference between dissolvingand melting. However, with respect to the conserva-tion of mass in dissolving, they emphasized that thereis no a significant difference between the groups ofstudents following the different teaching approaches.They concluded that there was some evidence of theretention of macroscopic particulate ideas by stu-dents. In light of this statement, they suggested thatthe foregoing issue would be addressed in futureteaching and learning sequence.

Goodwin (2002) explained the terms “melt”and “dissolve” theoretically using diagrams andsystems (NaCl/water; Zn/Cd; Na2S2O3·5H2O) tojustify his hypotheses. The first hypothesis includesthat the application of heat cannot be used as asimple criterion to distinguish between “melting”and “dissolving.” The second hypothesis involvesthe fundamental difference between melting anddissolution. That is, whereas dissolution processtakes places with a system in which more than onesubstance is involved, melting process can occur witha single substance. By using his chemistry knowledgeat a more sophisticated level, he indicated that whenthe process consisted of heating solid mixtures of twoor more substances, the term “melt” is used in place

of “dissolve,” but he suggested that “melting” occursusually at higher temperatures. Also, he stated thatin elementary science teaching, sodium chloride andits solution in water included adequate differenceto distinguish between “melting” and “dissolving,”but it was not good enough justification for adults orteachers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERRE-THINKING AND CAPACITY BUILDING

The National Science Foundation through itscontinuous research programs and efforts has beenemphasizing the importance of preparing teachersto improve and sustain student learning. The Na-tional Commission on Teaching and America’s Fu-ture (NCTAF, 1996) and the National Center forEducational Statistics (NCES, 1998) underscore theclose relationship between students’ achievementand the pedagogical content knowledge, the con-tent skills, and instructional practices of teachers.For improvement of student learning in chemistrythis review of solution chemistry studies sheds lighton teacher re-thinking and capacity building withrespect to: explicitly incorporating students’ con-ceptions to chemistry curriculum, viewing students’conceptions with two lenses, exposing teachers toresearch-based strategies, forging links among typesof chemical knowledge, and researchers collaborat-ing with teachers for experimental teaching

Explicitly Incorporating Students’ Conceptionsinto Chemistry Curriculum

Broadly, chemistry education curriculum, likeother curricula documents, consists of the “what”(theoretical constructs both from science and edu-cation) and the “how” (pedagogy) of teaching. Cur-rent standard-based (NRC, 1996, 2000) curriculumdocuments (e.g., Michigan Curriculum Frameworkand Science Benchmarks, 2000) promote scientific in-quiry. The expectation is for students to reflectivelyconstruct knowledge. But most often readers of thesedocuments do not adequately understand how to ex-plicitly integrate students’ conceptions in scientificinquiry. Most individuals believe that merely hands-on activities and “discovery learning” help constructknowledge.

This synthesis of solution chemistry studies en-ables us to re-orient our thinking about the addi-tional purpose of the curriculum—it suggests thatthe “what” of curriculum should also incorporate


students’ conceptions. If so, then teachers need to bemade aware of viewing students’ conceptions for dif-ferent purposes.

Viewing Students’ Conceptions

The primary aim of most researchers in solu-tion chemistry studies has been to catalogue stu-dents’ conceptions as “misconceptions” or “alterna-tive conceptions.” For example, Ozmen and Ayas(2003) argue “teachers should review, diagnose andthink about possible misconceptions or students’prior knowledge, before teaching a class or labora-tory in which a new material is introduced” (p. 288).A few researchers who have gone beyond document-ing, categorizing, and interpreting students’ ideashave also developed strategies for diagnostic treat-ment (see Table IV). Students (pre- and in-serviceteachers) in the colleges of education seem to havesome notion of this deficit model because in meth-ods courses students are exposed to diagnose stu-dents’ conceptions. But they need to be providedwith opportunities to understand how students’ con-ceptions may be used to construct scientific knowl-edge using the theory-building model. Althoughboth models underscore students’ conceptions if thetheory-building model is practiced, then students’ de-ficiencies would be taken care of. Whatever modelswe might use, experience with teachers informs usthat research-based strategies for exploring students’conceptions and incorporating these conceptions inunit and lesson planning are very useful.

Exposing Teachers to Research-Based Strategies

Research-based strategies in solution chemistrystudent conception research have three foci: explor-ing students’ conceptions, meaning–making of con-ceptions, and incorporating students’ conceptionsinto curriculum. The preferred methods of exploringstudents’ conceptions of solution chemistry studiesare interviews, paper and pencil surveys (open-endedquestions and multiple-choice questions) free writ-ing, and drawings (see Table II). The interviews con-sisted of “interview about instance and event” (Os-borne and Cosgrove, 1983), that is, salt dissolving inwater, and “interview about concept” (Osborne andCosgrove, 1983)—the concept of dissolution.

Interview about instance and event, and inter-view about concept used in solution chemistry studiesmay be easily adapted for classroom teaching. In par-ticular, the tasks used to explore students’ concep-

tions in the interviews can be used in the classroom.Most often teachers themselves use these tasks, notnecessarily to identify students’ conceptions, but fordemonstration purposes to illustrate chemical con-cepts. The researchers have actually used what hasbeen already used in the classroom, but for a dif-ferent purpose, that is, to explore students’ con-ceptions. Likewise, the students’ drawings exposetheir conceptions about chemical phenomena suchas dissolving, particularly their understanding of sub-microscopic ideas. Free writing has been utilized toexplore students’ conceptions and graphically struc-ture these to reveal students’ conceptual weaknessesand strengths (Liu and Ebenezer, 2002).

Information secured from various methods ofexploration reveals inherent variability and abilityof student reasoning (Ebenezer and Erickson, 1996).Teachers, therefore, need to learn to identify oneor two methods of exploring students’ conceptionsusing everyday activity such as sugar/salt dissolvingin water, which depicts the important concepts insolution chemistry, to frame open-ended appropri-ate questions, to encourage students to reveal theirmultiple conceptions, to value the inter- and intra-variations in conceptions, and bring meaning to theseconceptions. Concurrently, students have the oppor-tunity to recognize that their conceptions are worth-while for theirs as well as their teachers’ considera-tion, eventually, evaluate their knowledge to find thedifference between their knowledge and chemicalknowledge, and trace their knowledge development.

In meaning–making of students’ conceptions, itis important for teachers to realize the importance ofstudent conception research, which points to severalfacets among others:

• Sources of students’ conceptions, which mayinclude a particular phenomenon, a context,teacher language, visual representations, text-books, and media (Ebenezer and Erickson,1996).

• The different uses of terms such as “melting”and “dissolving” (Goodwin, 2002).

• Difference between “hard-core” and “soft-core” conceptions (Niaz, 1998).

• Students’ conceptions most often reflect per-ceptual reasoning (Osborne and Wittrock,1983).

• There are different knowledge types in chem-istry (macroscopic, sub-microscopic, sym-bolic), and students’ inability to link these(Johnstone, 1991; Gabel, 1992; Harrison and


Treagust, 2000; Ebenezer, 2001; Treagustet al., 2003).

In developing curriculum, each category of de-scription and structural characteristics provide theteachers and students with a starting point forpreparing a set of meaningful experiences for stu-dents to develop deeper understanding by matchingstudents’ conceptions with chemical content, exper-imental activities and pedagogy. It is not simply amatter of following the textbook or a sequence oflessons based on developmental aspects of contentknowledge. Students’ conceptions can be used to de-velop investigations, to frame and pose questions, todetermine methods and tools of inquiry, and to ar-gue and negotiate. When students make their ideaspublic and work as a community of inquirers, thenthey will be aware of and respect each others’ think-ing (Miller and Hunn, 2001). Students will be able todiscuss and resolve opposing views. Based on theirconceptions, students would be encouraged to askfurther questions, reflect on their beliefs, and assessnew information. The questions students ask will re-veal more of their understanding.

Haidar and Abraham (1991) suggest designingspecific curricula, which leads to disequilibrium orconceptual conflict. Instructional strategies need topay more attention to how concepts are developedor changed so that students will change their ownpre-existing concepts in the face of evidence, withinan intellectually comforting environment (Abrahamet al., 1994). The conceptual reasoning involved in so-lution process could be used to develop evidence andanalogy relations related to energy and are incorpo-rated into structures of student conceptions (Liu andEbenezer, 2001). Teaching should also aim for a con-sistent theory of the solution process (Ebenezer andFraser, 2001).

The chemistry classroom should emphasize con-textual learning—enabling students to know whereeveryday conceptions of chemical phenomenon areappropriate and where conceptions from the com-munity of chemists are more appropriate. “Thechemistry classroom, then, becomes a place wherestudents’ everyday ideas are initially consideredbut, in addition, students are also encouraged tosee chemists’ ways of looking at the same phe-nomenon as a fruitful alternative in particular con-texts” (Ebenezer and Gaskell, 1995, p. 15).

Niaz (1998) stressed the difference between“hard-core” and “soft-core.” When Ebenezer andGaskell (1995), and Ebenezer and Fraser (2001)

stated that the types of students’ responses dependupon tasks, it refers to the notion of “soft-core.”This means the tasks have raised conflict in stu-dents’ mind. Conceptual change readily occurs in thiscase. However, students’ confusion between “melt-ing” and “dissolving” is an example of “hard-core.”Therefore, taking into account the difference be-tween “hard-core” and “soft-core,” and recogniz-ing alternative conceptions seen as part of students’“hard-core” (negative heuristic) are resistance tochange, may be beneficial for deciding on conceptualchange strategies.

Students’ personal understandings of chemicalconcepts must be systematically exposed in a sup-portive environment so that such a procedure getsstudents to compare their own conceptions with theirpeers as well as the experts (Ebenezer, 2001). Insuch an environment, they should feel comfortableto openly negotiate their ideas. Ebenezer and Fraser(2001) pointed out knowing that the same categorieswill surface for similar chemical tasks and questions,it will be easy to devise classroom-based activities todetermine future students’ conceptions so that theywill be brought into the open and based on theseconceptions, the students will be able to intellectu-ally bond with the teacher and with peers for jointinquiry and discourse.

Forging Links Between Typesof Chemical Knowledge

Students’ knowledge is usually perceptual oreveryday-based. This abstract relationship betweenmodel and reality enables science educators to helpin the development of students’ reasoning abilitiesin order to be able to make the connection betweenmodel and reality. Therefore, taking into account stu-dents’ conceptions, chemistry curricular should writeor re-orient in a way that fosters connections be-tween students’ macroscopic experiences obtainedthrough hands on activities and their scientific micro-scopic explanations (Haidar and Abraham, 1991).

Valanides (2000) is of the view that school sci-ence should put more emphasis on concepts, such asmovement and interaction at the molecular level forimplying the dissolution process or evaporation. Thisauthor further notes that school science should alsodistinguish between factors that are essential for asubstance to dissolve, such as the solvent/solute in-teraction or affinity with solvent, and those factorsthat simply speed up the dissolution process, such


as stirring, heating, or the aggregation state of thesolute.

The findings of students’ conceptions in re-search articles have been translated into booksand posted in websites (for example, see Duit,www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/bibint). But theseresources have not been fully used in unit and les-son planning. In teacher education, science methodscourses should bring teacher awareness to this litera-ture and resources so that they may see the potentialvalue in using students’ conceptions for remediation(a deficit model) and/or to characterize theory build-ing via nature of science.

General Chemistry Concept Inventory (GCCI)(Mulford and Robinson, 2002) may be used to diag-nose the deficits of students. This inventory uses 22multiple-choice questions, which use students’ con-ceptions as detractors. Such a model would be use-ful to those who believe in deficit conceptual changemodels. In contrast, the same inventory may be usedto provide students’ conceptions, which may be usedas theories, portraying children as theory builders asearly chemists did. This step would indeed character-ize the nature of science in its current sense. Students’conceptions would no longer be looked upon as mis-conceptions or alternative conceptions essential forremediation or conceptual conflict. However, theory-building model will naturally attend to students’ mis-conceptions. Thus, textbook writers and curriculumdevelopers may use students’ conceptions and themodels in which conceptions may be used to developbetter materials for classroom use.

Liu and Ebenezer (2002) argue that in order topromote students’ conceptual change on specific con-cepts, the focus should be on developing students’repertoire of conceptual relationships both in qual-ity and quantity. Particular attention could be paid todeveloping students’ clustering relationships (charac-teristics). For example, a concept mapping programcalled Inspiration (1997) could be used to enableboth teachers and students to become conscious ofthe structural characteristics related to students’ con-ceptions while teaching and learning chemistry.

The planning for effective teaching and learningstrategies has thus emerged at a more relevant level(Liu and Ebenezer, 2002). Teaching materials basedon conceptual change research can greatly enhanceteachers’ effectiveness (Lee et al., 1993). The keyto success during conceptual change learning is en-suring that students are constructing or reconstruct-ing leading to a more plausible explanatory model(Ozmen and Ayas, 2003).

Collaborating with Teachers and CurriculumDevelopers for Experimental Teaching

Ozmen and Ayas (2003) suggest that future re-searchers in this area, in collaboration with teach-ers and curriculum developers should design newteaching materials, for example, about conservationof matter, and implement them in classrooms in anexperimental setting, so that they may better com-prehend the effects of different teaching techniquesand materials on students’ conceptions. Researchersare supposed to break down many of the tradi-tional obstacles between teachers and researchers,in so doing, enter into more collaborative teachingand research projects with teachers (Ebenezer andErickson, 1996). More than a decade ago, Ebenezer(1991) and 10 years later Ebenezer (2001) did con-duct collaborative studies with teachers in their ownclassroom. However, such studies are sparse!

FUTURE RESEARCH

Further research must be concentrated on de-vising new trajectories for students to take to arriveat common knowledge. Such a study should tackleto understand how to move learners from their per-sonal conceptions to plausible models in “solutionchemistry” within the classroom learning community(Ebenezer and Fraser, 2001). If teachers are alertedto students’ conception research, they may also at-tempt to devise and implement their own strategiesand conduct action research to explore students’ con-ceptions to intervene in their thinking or use themfor theory building. Also, studies in solution chem-istry should carry out further research have on areassuch as symbolic representations, knowledge types,and consistency of explanations.

Valanides (2000) proposed that student teachersshould be encouraged to explore, expose, and articu-late their conceptions. They will then become awareof their personal conceptions and search for teach-ing materials and strategies to intervene in their ownthinking and their own students’ thinking. The teach-ers should also be provided with tools to explore andreflectively make sense of their own and their stu-dents’ conceptions for enhancing conceptual under-standing. This method of educating student teach-ers, that is, learning to teach, can be accomplishedthrough a collaborative process in methods courses.Such a complex educational endeavor must be re-searched.


Lastly, no classroom-based research has beenyet conducted using students’ conceptions for the-ory building. Students’ theories such as liquefactionor melting theory, chemical combination theory, hy-drate theory, and ionic theory may be studied froma historical perspective (Thagard, 1992) to help stu-dents understand scientific theory development. Ifstudents participate in conceptual change inquirylearning using the Common Knowledge Construc-tion Model (Ebenezer and Haggerty, 1999), they willhave opportunities to be well versed with the aspectsof nature of science outlined in McComas and Al-mazroa (1998). There are yet new ways of lookingat students’ conceptions for teaching and learning,and these should constitute the agenda for further re-search.

REFERENCES

Abraham, M. R., Gryzybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W., and Marek,A. E. (1992). Understanding and misunderstanding of eighthgraders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journalof Research in Science Teaching 29: 105–120.

Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., and Westbrook, S. L. (1994).A cross-age study of the understanding five concepts. Journalof Research in Science Teaching 31: 147–165.

Andersson, B. (1984). Chemical Reactions. Report: Elevperspek-tiv, Number 12, University of Goteborg, Goteborg.

Andersson, B. (1992). Pupils’ conception of matter and its trans-formations. In Lijnse, P. L., Licht, P., De Vos, W. A. J. Waarlo(Eds.), Relating Macroscopic Phenomena to Microscopic Par-ticles, A Central Problem in Secondary Science Education,University of Utrecht, Netherlands, pp. 12–16.

Ausebel, D. P., Novak, J. D., and Hanesian, H. (1986). EducationalPschology: A Cognitive View, Holt, Rinehart and Winson,New York.

Ayas, A., and Costu, B. (2002). Levels of understanding ofthe evaporation concept at secondary stage. The First In-ternational Education Conference, Changing Times Chang-ing Needs, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa-Northern Cyprus.

Ayas, A., and Demirbas, A. (1997). Turkish secondary students’conception of introductory chemistry concepts. Journal ofChemical Education 74: 518–521.

Ayas, A., Kose, S., and Tas, E. (2002). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on misconceptions about photosynthe-sis. The First International Education Conference, ChangingTimes Changing Needs, Eastern Mediterranean University,Gazimagusa-Northern Cyprus.

Barker, V., and Millar, R. (1999). Students’ reasoning about chem-ical reactions: What changes occur during a context-basedpost-16 chemistry course? International Journal of ScienceEducation 21: 645–665.

Blanco, A., and Prieto, T. (1997). Pupils’ views on how stirringand temperature affect the dissolution of a solid in a liquid:A cross-age study (12 to 18). International Journal of ScienceEducation 19: 303–315.

Brook, A., Briggs, H., and Driver, R. (1984). Aspects of SecondaryStudents’ Understanding of the Particulate Nature of Matter,Center for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education,Leeds, University of Leeds.

Cosgrove, M., and Osborne, R. (1981). Physical Change (Work-ing Paper No. 26), Learning in Science Project, University ofWaikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Driver, R. (1981). Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science. Euro-pean Journal of Science Education 3: 93–101.

Drıver, R., and Russell, T. (1982). An Investigation of the Ideasof Heat Temperature and Change of State of Children AgedBetween 8 and 14 Years, Unpublished Paper, University ofLeeds.

Duschl, R., and Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting ar-gumentation discourse in science education. Studies in ScienceEducation 38: 39–72.

Ebenezer, J. V. (1991). Students’ Conceptions of Solubility:A Teacher–Researcher Collaborative Study, UnpublishedDoctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Ebenezer, J. V., and Gaskell, P. J. (1995). Relational conceptualchange in solution chemistry. Science Education 79: 1–17.

Ebenezer, J. V., and Erickson, L. G. (1996). Chemistry students’conception of solubility: A phenomenograpy. Science Educa-tion 80: 181–201.

Ebenezer, J., and Haggerty, S. (1999). Becoming a SecondarySchool Science Teacher, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,NJ.

Ebenezer, J. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore andnegotiate students’ conceptions: Animation of the solutionprocess of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Tech-nology 10: 73–91.

Ebenezer, J. V., and Fraser, M. D. (2001). First year chemical engi-neering students’ conception of energy in solution processes:Phenomenographic categories for common knowledge con-struction. Science Education 85: 509–535.

Fensham, P., and Fensham, N. (1987). Description and frame-works of solutions and reactions in solutions. Research in Sci-ence Education 17: 139–148.

Gabel, D. L. (1992). Modeling with magnets – A unified approachto chemistry problem solving. The Science Teacher, March,58–63.

Garnett, J. P., and Treagust, D. F. (1992). Conceptual difficul-ties experienced by senior high school students of electro-chemistry: Electric circuits and oxidation–reduction equa-tions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29: 687–699.

Gennaro, E. D. (1981). Assessing junior high students’ under-standing of density and solubility. School Science and Math-ematics 81: 399–404.

Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, J. R., and Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’sscience and its consequences for teaching. Science Education66: 623–633.

Griffiths, A. K., Thomey, K., Cooke, B., and Normore, G. (1988).Remediation of student-specific misconception relating tothree science concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing 25: 709–719.

Griffiths, A. K. (1994). A critical analysis and synthesis of researchon chemistry misconceptions. In Schmidt, H.-J. (Ed.), Pro-ceedings of The 1994 International Symposium Problem Solv-ing And Misconceptions in Chemistry And Physics, ICASE(The International Council of Associations For Science Edu-cation) Publications, pp. 70–99.

Goodwin, A. (2002). Is salt melting when it dissolves in water?Journal of Chemical Education 79: 393–396.

Haidar, A. H., and Abraham, M. R. (1991). A comparison ofapplied and theoretical knowledge of concept based on theparticulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 28: 919–938.

Harrison, A. G., and Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms,molecules and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education 84: 352–381.


Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst SouthAfrican students. Physics Education 15: 92–105.

Hess, J. J. (1987). Students’ Conceptions of Chemical Change, Un-published Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University,E. Lansing.

Holding, B. (1987). Investigation of School Children’s Understand-ings of the Process of Dissolving With Special Reference tothe Conservation of Matter and the Development of AtomisticIdeas, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds.

Inspiration Software (1997). Inspiration (version 5.0), InspirationSoftware, Portland, OR.

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Thingsare seldom what they seem. Journal of Computerized AssistedLearning 7: 75–83.

Johnson, K., and Scott, P. (1991). Diagnostic teaching in the sci-ence classroom: Teaching/learning strategies to promote de-velopment in understanding about conservation of mass ondissolving. Research in Science and Technological Education9, 2.

Johnston, P. (1998). Progression in children’s understanding ofa ‘basic’ particle theory: A longitudinal study. InternationalJournal of Science Education 20: 393–412.

Kaartinen, S., and Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Collaborative inquiryand the construction of explanations in the learning of sci-ence. Learning and Instruction 12: 189–212.

Kabapınar, F., Leach, J., and Scott, P. (2004). The design and eval-uation of a teaching–learning sequence addressing the solu-bility concept with Turkish secondary school students. Inter-national Journal of Science Education 26: 635–652.

Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D.,and Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students’conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research inScience Teaching 30: 249–270.

Liu, X., Ebenezer, J., and Fraser, D. M. (2002). Structural char-acteristics of university engineering students’ conceptions ofenergy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39: 423–441.

Liu, X., and Ebenezer, J. (2002). Descriptive categories and struc-tural characteristics of students’ conceptions: An explorationof the relationship. Research in Science and Technological Ed-ucation 20: 111–132.

Longden, K., Black, P., and Solomon, J. (1991). Children’s inter-pretation of dissolving. International Journal of Science Edu-cation 13: 59–68.

Marton, F., and Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness,Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

McComas, W. F., and Almazroa, H. (1998). The nature of sciencein science education: An introduction. Science and Education7: 511–532.

Michigan Curriculum Framework and Science Benchmarks(2000). http://www.misd.net/MIBIG.

Miller, H., and Hunn, G. D. (2001). Using group discussions toimprove social problem-solving and learning. Education 121:470–475.

Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., and Novak, J. D. (2000). AssessingScience Understanding, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

Mulford, D. R., and Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for al-ternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistrystudents. Journal of Chemical Education 79: 739–744.

Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry.Journal of Chemical Education 69: 191–196.

National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (1996,September). What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Fu-ture, Author, New York.

National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Pursuing Ex-cellence: A Study of U.S. Twelfth-Grade Mathematics andScience Teaching, Learning, Curriculum, and Achievementin International Context, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC.

National Research Council (1996). National Science EducationStandards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Edu-cation Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Niaz, M. (1998). A Lakotasian conceptual change teaching strat-egy based on student ability to build models with varying de-grees of conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium.Science and Education 7: 107–127.

Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates’ bonding miscon-ception. International Journal of Science Education 23: 707–730.

Novak, J. D. (1977). A Theory of Education, Cornell UniversityPress, Ithaca, NY.

Osborne, R. J., and Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s concep-tions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research inScience Teaching 20: 825–838.

Osborne, R. J., and Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: Agenerative process. Science Education 67: 489–508.

Ozmen, H., and Ayas, A. (2003). Students’ difficulties in under-standing of the conservation of matter in open and closed-system chemical reactions. Chemistry Education: Researchand Practice 4: 279–290.

Peterson, R. F., and Treagust, D. F. (1989). Grade-12 students’misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure. Journal ofChemical Education 66: 459–460.

Pınarbası, T., and Canpolat, N. (2003). Students’ understanding ofsolution chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education80: 1328–1332.

Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. (1974). The Child’s Construction ofQuantities, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Prieto, T., Blanco, A., and Rodriguez, A. (1989). The ideas of 11to 14-year-old students about the nature of solutions. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education 11: 451–463.

Pines, A. L., and West, L. H. T. (1986). Conceptual understandingand science learning: An interpretation of research within asource of knowledge framework. Science Education 70: 583–604.

Quiles-Pardo, J., and Solaz-Portoles, J. J.(1995). Students andteachers misapplication of Le Chatelier’s Principle: Implica-tions for the teaching of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Re-search in Science Teaching 32: 939–957.

Ramsden, J. M. (1997). How does a context-based approach in-fluence understanding of key chemical ideas at 16+? Interna-tional Journal of Science Education 19: 697–710.

Ravialo, A. (2001). Assessing students’ conceptual understandingof solubility equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education 78:629–631.

Renstrom, L. (1988). Conceptions of Matter: A PhenomenographyApproach. PhD dissertation, Gothenburg University Press.

Schmidt, H. J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions – Looking for apattern. Science Education 81: 123–135.

Smith, K. J., and Metz, P. A. (1996). Evaluating student under-standing of solution chemistry through microscopic represen-tations. Journal of Chemical Education 73: 233–235.

Stavy, R. (1988). Children’s conception of gas. International Jour-nal of Science Education 20: 553–560.

Stavy, R. (1990). Pupils’ problems in understanding conservationof matter. International Journal of Science Education 12: 501–512.

Taber, K. S. (2000). Chemistry lessons for universities?: A reviewof constructivist ideas. University Chemistry Education 4: 26–35.

Taylor, N., and Coll, R. (1997). The use of analogy in the teachingof solubility to pre-service primary teachers. Australian Sci-ence Teachers’ Journal 43: 58–64.

Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions, Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton, NJ.

Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., and Mamiala, T. L. (2003).The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in


chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Edu-cation 25: 1353–1368.

Tsai, C. C. (1999). Laboratory exercises help me memorize the sci-entific truths: A study of eighth graders’ scientific epistemo-logical views and learning laboratory activities. Science Edu-cation 83: 654–674.

Valanides, N. (2000). Primary student teachers’ understanding ofthe particulate nature of matter and its transformations dur-ing dissolving. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice inEurope 1: 249–262.

Zietsman, A. L., and Hewson, P. W. (1986). Effect of instruc-tion using microcomputer simulations and conceptual changestrategies on science learning. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 23: 27–39.

Westbrook, S. L., and Marek, A. E. (1991). A cross-age study of understanding of the concept diffusion.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28: 649–660.

White, R., and Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding, TheFalmer Press, London.

A Review of Solution Chemistry Studies: Insights into Students’ Conceptions

Documents