The particulate nature of matter in science education and in science

Abstract

This article addresses ideas about the particulate nature of matter that are considered to be correct or acceptable in science education and studies of children's misconceptions. It argues that science teachers and educators use educational as well as scientific criteria for correctness, and that these criteria do not always coincide. Relations between the particulate nature of matter in science and science education are analyzed in an attempt to make more intelligible children's inclination to attribute all kinds of macroscopic properties to particles.

Secondary school science teachers' arguments for the particulate nature of matter

“…However, the focus on chemical experiments could also be an indication that indirect chemical arguments, rather than physical or subatomic arguments, for the PNM are easier to find. From our data, we did find experimental arguments that correspond to point 3 of the list of de Vos and Verdonk (1996) regarding the distance between and the distribution of particles in the gas phase. However, we did not find any argument corresponding to point 6, which implies the following: different substances-different particles, one substance-identical particles.…”

“…His study of 28 experienced chemistry teachers described teaching pathways from particles to molecules/chemical bonds via the Greek atomic model and Dalton's atomic model (Bindernagel & Eilks, 2009). This concept is in accordance with de Vos and Verdonk (1996). However, Eilks found that repeated mixing of the different historical models often created confusion among the students and thus called for an innovation in the chemistry classroom (Eilks, 2013(Eilks, , 2015.…”

“…Alternatively, the lack of strong arguments could also reflect the fragmented understanding of the historical paths leading to today's view regarding matter. Therefore, we first compare our results to the research results of de Vos and Verdonk (1996). Second, we compare our data with the arguments that were given when the atomic theory was finally accepted as a scientific fact, reflected by the arguments summarized by Perrin (1916).…”

Generating construct maps from a systematic review of atomic models

“…The pre‐particle conceptions in Table 1 describe students' understanding of the composition of matter preceding the understanding of the particulate nature model (de Vos & Verdonk, 1996). The ACs at level A1 might stem from students' understanding of the word “particle” (i.e., powder‐like substance) validated by their everyday experience, clashing with the intangible notion of submicroscopic “particles” bearing the same name but sharing none of their properties (Harrison & Treagust, 1996; Johnston & Driver, 1991; K. S. Taber, 2003; Watts & Taber, 1996).…”

“…Students at this level recognize the particulate nature of matter, with varying degrees of understanding of the components making up the structure of atoms (i.e., electrons, protons, neutrons). As students adopt the particle model, they gain the ability to explain phase transitions and the differences between solid, liquid, and gas states (Adadan et al, 2009; de Vos & Verdonk, 1996). Progression through the particle model occurs when students recognize molecules are made from atoms, allowing them to distinguish atoms and molecules (Park & Light, 2009).…”